Cobiax Flat Slabs I

Natural frequency of Cobiax flat slabs
Lukas Wolski
Thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for

MSc in Civil and Structural Engineering
Coventry University
September, 2006
Abstract
The problem of human discomfort due to low-level vibrations of concrete slabs is
an important factor of consideration during any design process. The continuing
trend towards large open floors, free of partitions, and increased slenderness in
design aesthetics increases the likelihood of annoying floor vibration induced by
small impacts such as human footfalls.
The present research covers several areas concerned with addressing this problem.
A basic literature review of previous work in the field of floor vibrations is
presented and provides an introduction into this general topic.
At first some recommendations of acceptance limits by national standards as well
as by independent authors are presented. The problems hindering the proper
evaluation of floor vibration are also shown.
The next area of study involves simplified hand calculation methods for the
approximate estimation of concrete slabs fundamental frequencies. Different
approaches are presented and afterwards compared and evaluated against several
example solutions from accurate finite element software.
The third chapter focuses on the fundamental frequency of a specific biaxial
hollow concrete slab: the Cobiax flat slab. An investigation of its vibration
behaviour under different parameters was carried out using finite element
software. The data of seven different floor designs was obtained and compared to
conventional solid slabs, leading to a final evaluation of the vibration performance
of Cobiax flat slabs.
Acknowledgments
First of all I would thank my supervisor Dr. Messaoud Saidani for his support,
patience and guidance throughout the development of this thesis. Thanks are also
due to Dr John Davies and John Karadelis for their advice and their help to realise
this research.
I would like to express sincere gratitude to Prof. Dr.-Ing. Andrej Albert for his
generous support and guidance throughout this dissertation. His suggestions and
encouragement has been greatly appreciated.
Many thanks are due to Cobiax Technologies GmbH in Darmstadt, Germany and
Cobiax Technologies Ltd in London, United Kingdom. Special thanks go to
Dr. Karsten Pfeffer and Daniel Ptacek who helped to establish this project and
supported it during its completion.
I must also thank Christian Roggenbuck, for his constant support and helpful
advice not only throughout this research but for the entire last year.
Finally, I need to thank my family and especially my girlfriend for their never
ending belief in me and my ability to accomplish what I set out to do. Their
support and love have allowed me to achieve this goal.
Notation
a
Length of plate
Width of plate
Clamped edge
CS
Cobiax flat slab
Plate rigidity
Youngs modulus
Natural frequency
f0
Fundamental frequency
Free edge
Gravity
Modulus of rigidity
Plate thickness
Moment of inertia
Ix
Moment of inertia in x-direction
Iy
Moment of inertia in y-direction
Stiffness
Mass (per unit area)
Simply supported
SS
Solid slab
Length-width ratio
Damping ratio
Density of plate material
Poissons ratio
Circular frequency (= 2 x frequency)
Contents
1. Introduction and Background Knowledge .....................................................1
1.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................1
1.2 Natural Frequency ........................................................................................2
1.3 Cobiax flat slab .............................................................................................3
1.4 Aims & Objectives .......................................................................................5
1.5 Need of research ...........................................................................................6
1.6 Literature review ..........................................................................................7
1.6.1 Human Response to Floor Vibration ..................................................7
1.6.2 Case Studies .......................................................................................9
1.6.3 Consideration of Vibration in Design ..............................................10
1.6.4 Two Way Hollow Decks ..................................................................12
1.6.5 Comparison of FEM and Field Tests ...............................................13
1.6.6 Determination of Frequency .............................................................16
2. Human Response and Acceptance Criteria ..................................................18
2.1 Recommendations in Codes ............................................................................. 20
2.1.1 British Standard ................................................................................20
2.1.2 German Standard ..............................................................................24
2.2 Recommendations in Literature .................................................................26
2.3 Summary ....................................................................................................31
3. Simplified Hand-Calculation Methods ..........................................................32
3.1 Common Mathematic Techniques ..............................................................33
3.2 Formulas and Tables for the Calculation of Fundamental Frequency .......34
3.2.1 Equivalent Beam Method .................................................................34
3.2.2 Equivalent Plate Approach ...............................................................35
3.2.3 Concrete Society Method .................................................................35
3.2.4 Static Deflection Method .................................................................36
3.2.5 Approximation Presented by Hearmon ............................................37
3.2.6 Approximation Presented by Jnich .................................................39
3.2.7 Estimation for Pin Supported Plates .................................................41
3.2.8 Compilation of Formulas by Bachmann ..........................................42
3.2.9 Compilation of Formulas by Blevins ...............................................44

3.3 Analysis of Results .....................................................................................45
3.4 Conclusion ..................................................................................................47
4. Numerical Analysis .........................................................................................48
4.1 Software ......................................................................................................49
4.2 Verification of Software Accuracy .............................................................50
4.2 General Settings .........................................................................................52
4.3 Analysis of Results .....................................................................................54
4.4 Conclusion ..................................................................................................59
5. Conclusions and Recommendations ..............................................................60
5.1 General Conclusions ...................................................................................60
5.2 Areas of Future Research ...........................................................................61
References ............................................................................................................62
APPENDIX A (Simplified Hand Calculation) ....................................................67
APPENDIX B (Calculated Values by FEM) .......................................................93
APPENDIX C (Cobiax Information) .................................................................101
Figures
Figure 1.1 Cobiax cage modules ...........................................................................3
Figure 1.2 Cobiax semi-precast slabs ....................................................................4
Figure 2.1 BS 6472 (1992): Coordinate systems for vibration influencing
humans ...............................................................................................21
Figure 2.2 BS 6472 (1992): Building vibration z-axis curves for
acceleration (r.m.s.) ............................................................................23
Figure 2.3 DIN 4150-2 (1999) progression of assessment procedure .................25
Figure 2.4 Reiher-Meister scale ...........................................................................26
Figure 2.5 Graph of reduced human response .....................................................27
Figure 2.6 Annoyance criteria by Allen and Rainer ............................................ 28
Figure 3.1 Frequency parameter for continuous slabs .........................................43
Figure 3.2 Comparison of hand-calculated and computed frequencies ...............45
Figure 3.3 Individual accuracy of approximations ..............................................46
Figure 3.4 Average accuracy of approximations .................................................47
Figure 4.1 Cobiax module ...................................................................................49
Figure 4.2 1.Mode shape obtained by Tornow-Software ....................................51
Figure 4.3 1.Mode shape obtained by RFEM ......................................................51
Figure 4.4 Fundamental frequencies for a single span slab .................................54
Figure 4.5 3-D view of frequency dependency ...................................................55
Figure 4.6 Cobiax advantages against loading ....................................................56
Figure 4.7 Accuracy of critical load for continuous slab ..................................58
Figure C.1 Comparison of spans and concrete quantity .....................................104
Figure C.2 Comparison of spans and loads ........................................................104
Tables
Table 2.1 BS 6472 (1992): Multiplying factors .................................................22
Table 2.2 Extract of DIN 4150-2 (1999): Reference values A for residential
and similarly used buildings ...............................................................24
Table 2.3 Values of K and ...............................................................................29
Table 2.4 Human perception criteria by Bolton .................................................30
Table 2.5 Overall acceptance levels for various types of environment .............30
Table 3.1 Frequency paramenter provided by Hearmon ....................................38
Table 3.2 K and N parameters ............................................................................40
Table 3.3 Frequency parameters for pin supports ..............................................41
Table 3.4 Frequency paramenter provided by Bachmann ..................................42
Table 3.5 Frequency paramenter provided by Blenvis ......................................44
Table 4.1 Cobiax advantage related to loads and thickness ..............................56
Table 4.2 Accuracy of critical load for one span slab .....................................58
Table 4.3 Extract of imposed loadings in BS 6399-1 (1996)
and DIN 1055-3 (2002) ......................................................................59
Table A.1 Summary of approximate hand calculation ........................................92
Table B.1 Simply supported slab, one-way spanning .........................................94
Table B.2 Simply supported slab, two-way spanning .........................................95
Table B.3 Two span slab, two-way spanning .....................................................96
Table B.4 Three span slab, two-way spanning ...................................................97
Table B.5 1x1 bay slab, supported by columns ..................................................98
Table B.6 2x1 bay slab, supported by columns ..................................................99
Table B.7 3x3 bay slab, supported by columns ................................................100
Table C.1 Existing Cobiax projects ..................................................................102
Table C.2 Factors considering reduced stiffness ..............................................103
Table C.3 Cobiax parameters ............................................................................104
1. Introduction and Background Knowledge
Lukas Wolski

1.1 Introduction
In the last years, the number of floor vibration complaints in residential buildings
and offices increased significantly (Hanagan 2005, Williams and Waldron 1994,
Naeim F. 1991). The two usual causes for this annoying problem are human
activities such as walking, running, jumping or dancing and mechanical
movement from, for example, air-conditioning systems, heating, and washing and
drying machines. In rarer cases, indirect excitations from automobiles on parking
levels below a floor, or transmitted vibration through building columns from other
floors or the ground are to blame.
The psychological effect of the up-and-down motion caused by floor vibration can
be immense. Generally, it gives people an unpleasant feeling and prompts fear
of structural collapse. This feeling increases even more if a person is not actively
involved in inducing the acting load. Peoples quality of life and working
conditions, then, are negatively affected by perceptible vibration and so it is
usually considered undesirable.
However, floor vibration does not only affect the inhabitants of a building; in
extreme cases it can also lead to fatigue failures or damage structural elements
which results in costly remodelling. Additionally, buildings housing sensitive
equipment such as hospitals, laboratories and manufacturing plants that use
modern micro- and nanotechnologies are in especial need of protection.
The problem of vexatious floor vibration is not new. Civil engineer Thomas
Tredgold (1828) wrote: "girders should always be made as deep as they can to
avoid the inconvenience of not being able to move on the floor without shaking
everything in the room." In the past, a simple deflection criterion (deflection of
less than span/x under distributed live load) usually ensured structures against
heavy vibration, but because of the current trend towards longer spans and
lighter floor systems (the result of more aesthetical and efficient constructions),
this approach no longer works and the need to reconsider floor vibration has
increased. Slender structural forms and decreased floor mass reduce natural
frequency as well as structural damping and so floor vibration has become an area
of concern.
Lukas Wolski
There exist several ways to prevent or at least reduce this problem. The simplest
and most effective method for machinery-induced floor vibration is to isolate the
source from the ground. This could be by means of springs, insulating plates or
other elastic bodies.
However, for human-induced vibration it is impossible to isolate the source from
the floor system. In this case humans are both the source and receiver of
vibrations which makes the situation very difficult. Thus, the structure itself must
be considered and modified to prevent annoying floor vibration. One way of
addressing this problem is to increase natural frequency to a level which can
hardly be perceived by a buildings occupants.
1.2 Natural Frequency

Natural frequency is one of the fundamental parameters used in the determination
of a structures response to dynamic loads. It is the frequency at which an elastic
object naturally vibrates when hit, struck, or otherwise disturbed. Every system
able to oscillate has its own natural frequencies. A pendulum, for example, always
oscillates at the same frequency when set in motion. Its frequency depends only
on physical properties such as the mass, length or stiffness of the spring.
Furthermore, the amount of natural frequencies for a system depends on its degree
of freedom and thus on its complexity. The lowest natural frequency of a system
is called its fundamental frequency. If a forced vibration is applied to a system, at
its natural frequency only a minimum of energy is required to keep it in vibration.
It is important to know the natural frequency of an object to predict its behaviour
in relation to vibration. The most important reason for this is resonance. If a
varying force with a frequency equal to the natural frequency is applied to a
system, the oscillation will become violent. Its amplitude will increase highly and
damages may occur. Although rare, total collapse is possible due to overloading
or failure in fatigue (this scenario predominantly affects bridges).
The fundamental frequency for the simplest model of a dynamic system which has
only one degree of freedom and no damping is given by:
f =
1
2
k
m
Lukas Wolski
In this case the natural frequency simply depends on the stiffness k and the total
mass m of the system. This equation indicates the importance of these two
qualities for a dynamic system. For concrete floors, the stiffness is composed of
further three factors: it depends on Young's modulus, Poissons ratio and the
moment of inertia of the considered structure.
To minimise the perception of floor vibration it is important to achieve as high as
possible values for the systems natural frequencies. This will occur if the
stiffness is very high and the mass is by contrast very low. This is the ideal case
which will result in very high frequencies. The opposite effect happens if a high
mass in combination with a low stiffness starts to vibrate and therefore this
situation should be avoided.
1.3 Cobiax flat slab

Cobiax is an international operating company which has developed a special
solution in the lightweight flat slab system sector. Their product, the Cobiax flat
slab, consists of hollow plastic spheres which are placed between the upper and
lower static reinforcement of the slab (Figure 1.1, published by Cobiax
Technologies AG). Each of these sphere are located in modules which consists of
a steel cage including several balls. The cage avoids a contact between ball and
static
which
reinforcement
leads
to
an
impairment of its bond.

Additionally, a buoying
upwards
during
concreting is avoided.
The balls replace the
concrete on its area with
the lowest benefit. The
main idea of this system
is to remove the useless
Figure 1.1 Cobiax cage modules
concrete
which
just
produces dead load without improving the static qualities of the slab. The concrete
Lukas Wolski
forms a hard shell with struts by using appropriately located cavities formed by
hollow spheres. Nevertheless the slab has the same load bearing behaviour as
traditional solid slabs and brings along some improvements to them. First of all
Cobiax slabs weighs up to 35% less than solid slabs of equivalent dimensions.
This has a positive effect on the number of necessary vertical bearing elements
(up to 40% less column usage). It is also feasible to create large spans, up to more
than 20 m, without using beams. These two factors increase the possibilities of
open areas in buildings, making more alterations possible. Furthermore, the mass
reduction is noticeable in designing foundations, leading to savings in the amount
of material used. Other advantages include reductions in CO2 emissions, savings
in the amount of reinforcement needed, the application of all common standard
designs and the smooth bottom view. This, the common formwork and the biaxial
load bearing made possible by the hollow sections spherical shape are also
advantages over common hollow concrete slabs such as waffle decks.
During the design process a few changes concerning the slabs specific qualities
should be considered, including the decrease in stiffness for Cobiax slabs caused
by the reduced moment of inertia compared to a solid slab. For this purpose
numeric factors have already been determined and can be easily used for
conversion (see Appendix C). Besides small modifications the whole design
requires no other variation. At the building site the Cobiax system arrives in the
form of cage modules for
on-site use or as semiprecast slabs (Figure 1.2,
published
Technologies
by
Cobiax
AG).
Alternatively it can be used

in combination with precast
or composite slabs. The
available ball diameters of
the spheres range between
180 mm and 450 mm which
allows for the production of
Figure 1.2 Cobiax semi-precast slabs
slabs from 24cm to upwards of 60cm.
Lukas Wolski
1.4 Aims and Objectives

The general aim of this dissertation is to investigate the impact of Cobiax flat
slabs specific qualities on their fundamental frequencies in comparison to solid
concrete floors. As in both main numerical factors for the fundamental frequency
the stiffness as well as the mass of the subject is decreased, the consequence for
the slabs behaviour in case of natural frequency should be researched. The result
should clarify if and how these different qualities affect the slabs performance.
Furthermore it should deliver an overview of the treatment of concrete floors
natural frequencies in structural engineering.
This study investigates three objectives. Firstly, due to varying estimations

concerning the limits of structures natural frequencies, different evaluations
following national codes and independent recommendations will be presented.
Afterwards a compilation of simplified methods for hand calculations will be
provided. They will be tested in some example calculations and their accuracy
when compared with finite element values will be investigated. The third
objective is the main area of this research. A precise comparison of Cobiax flat
slabs and traditional solid slabs will be undertaken using finite element software.
The data yielded will then be thoroughly analysed. This will result in a detailed
evaluation of the characteristic qualities of a Cobiax flat slab.
Lukas Wolski
1.5 Purpose of Research

This research is developed in collaboration with Cobiax Technologies GmbH,
Darmstadt, Germany and Cobiax Technologies Ltd, London. To market their
product effectively Cobiax must possess all necessary information concerning its
structural behaviour. Some areas of performance are yet to be investigated,
including the Cobiax slabs behaviour in relation to natural frequency; a detailed
comparison with a conventional concrete solid slab is also required. As already
explained, natural frequency in this context depends on two major factors. The
first is the stiffness of a slab which depends on its basic material as well as
geometry. Compared to a solid slab the material property is the same but due to its
hollow inside section, the Cobiax flat slab has a different geometry. This results in
a lower stiffness, which indicates a decrease in its natural frequency.
The second key component of the equation for natural frequency is the mass.
Contrary to the stiffness, where the hollow sections of the spheres have a negative
influence, in the case of mass they are an advantage. The one-third reduction in
concrete becomes perceivable and increases the value of natural frequency. The
decrease of both values has an opposite effect; one will improve the solution and
the other will impair it. The question is how much these characteristics impact on
the products performance and so which is to be the decisive factor in the final
evaluation and recommendations.
The research will carry out a clear investigation of this problem and deliver an
unambiguous judgement. It is important to explore all possible advantages of the
Cobiax flat slab as, in the future, this research may help to convince clients
worried about the effects of the slabs lower stiffness on its dynamic qualities.
Lukas Wolski
1.6 Literature review

1.6.1 Human Response to Floor Vibration
Arthur Bolton (1994) explained the importance of dynamics in structural
engineering with the following sentence: Crowds go to fairgrounds to be
subjected to quite large accelerations and enjoy the sensation, but if subjected to a
tiny fraction of that excitation in a building they might become sick or anxious.
The psychological effect of vibrating structures, then, can be profound. It can
cause people discomfort, nausea or anxiety. Of course these are all extreme
reactions, but milder effects present a difficult problem because of wide variations
in human sensitivity. There is also dependence on whether subjects are alone or in
a group; one particularly sensitive person amongst other people can sometimes
trigger off a collective belief that a barely perceptible vibration is dangerous or
uncomfortable. Another criterion of percipience vibration is the activity which is
being pursued at the time. Usually people are more sensitive to vibration when
they are in a quiet and untroubled area rather than, for example, a busy region.
Furthermore the direction of vibrations affects the percipience. Investigations
show that a translation in a horizontal direction has more effect than one in a
vertical direction. As a result of all these factors it is difficult to set an accurate
borderline between acceptable and unacceptable levels of vibration. It is only
possible to provide data with ranges which are definitely unacceptable and thus
should be prevented.
Reiher and Meister (1931) performed investigations to obtain such ranges. People
of different ages, professions and provenances had to stand and lie on a vibrated
platform. The tests covered sinusoidal vertical as well as sinusoidal horizontal
vibration. The frequencies used started from 3 Hertz up to 70 Hertz and
amplitudes from 0.0001 to 1.0 cm, figures which approach realistic values. During
the tests, noise was an important factor. It was necessary to minimize noise as
much as possible so as not to disturb hearing and thus the results.
After a vibration impact of 5 minutes every subject had to evaluate their
sentiences. They had to organise their sentiences into six groups which
ranged from not perceptible to very disturbing. After finishing all tests, the
7
Lukas Wolski
results were plotted in charts showing frequency against amplitude. All results
were included in these charts and afterwards it was possible to draw borderlines
for each category. These charts are one possible means of evaluating the
consequences of vibration for the human body. In general Reiher and Meister
recommend avoiding the last two categories. Residential areas should also avoid
vibration from category 4 which translates as keenly noticeable vibration.
A similar investigation was carried out by Wiss and Parmelee (1974). They
extended the amount of subjected persons from 10 to 40 and confined the scope of
their tests to a standing position. All persons had to assess their perception using
five classifications. For a steady-state condition (0 damping) this investigation
showed a lower perceptible for a particular frequency and displacement compared
of those performed by Reiher and Meister. However, the performance and
analysis of the studies were not exactly the same and so could explain these
differences. Further results concerned the effect of changing the damping for the
perception of vibration. It was assumed that if the damping was increased from
0.02 to 0.20 of critical, the product of frequency and displacement would
approximately double.
In general Bachmann (1987) recommends avoiding frequencies below 7.5Hz for

office buildings made of reinforced concrete. This value ensures that even the
third harmonic is taken into consideration, which means, that besides to the
fundamental frequency its integer multiples are regarded. For example, if the
frequency is f, the harmonics have frequency 2f, 3f, 4f, etc. Compared to
pedestrian structures such as gymnasia or sport halls where it is sufficient to
regard the second harmonic, for office buildings it is necessary to consider the
third harmonic as the occupants are more sensitive. Not only the occupants,
however, should be protected against vibration. Human motions such as walking,
running, dancing and skipping are sufficient to cause overstressing of the
structure, and in extreme cases the loss of structural integrity, damage to nonstructural elements (e.g. claddings), and development of cracking or excessive
noise (e.g. due to reverberating equipment).
Lukas Wolski
Brownjohn (2001) investigated the energy dissipation from vibrating slabs due to
human-structure interaction. It was clarified how the presence of people located
on a vibrating structure affects its dynamic behaviour. For this purpose a simply
supported 7m x 1m x 0.075m prestressed concrete plank was forced to vibrate
while a subject was standing on it. Five different sets of test were performed,
including the subject sitting on a plastic chair, standing erect, with knees slightly
bent, with knees very bent and finally with a solid mass equivalent to the subject.
The results confirmed that the human body acts dynamically with the structure by
decreasing its natural frequency. This was explained by the fact that the effective
mass is increased as well, but it was also identified that the human body has a
beneficial effect concerning damping ratio because, depending on posture,
damping can increase significantly.
1.6.2 Case Studies

The importance of both vibration problems and proper fundamental frequencies is
shown by Hanagan (2005), who has published a paper containing several case
studies on walking-induced floor vibration in existing buildings. This type of
vibration is shown to affect different types of buildings including offices, a
classroom and a clothing store. In each of these cases, the cause of vibration was
people walking around the space.
In one case, occupants of an office building started to report annoying floor
vibration in 2004. Interestingly, this building was constructed in 1974 and there
had been no previous complaints concerning floor vibration. After an
investigation measuring the acceleration of the affected slabs, it was detected that
the fundamental frequency of this floor system was about 4.7 Hz. This value is not
acceptable nowadays but it shows that even low frequencies might work well in
special circumstances. After almost 30 years vibration problems occurred due to
the removing of partitions which resulted in reduced damping and a higher
vibration.
Another case study in this paper shows the importance of complying with current
recommendations for natural frequencies. In this study structural engineers
suggested a more substantial floor system, including a thicker slab, to meet
Lukas Wolski
recommendations designed to avoid vibration problems. However, as a result of

previous experience with this building type, the higher costs involved and the
absence of vibration problems in the past, the developer elected for a thinner
solution. Unfortunately he was wrong and the occupants perceived motions close
to walk paths. The complaints stopped immediately after additional support and
damping was created through the use of full-height partitions.
Further case studies were presented by Bachmann (1992). He published ten cases
of vibration problems produced by human activity. One example specified
serviceability problems in a two-story gymnasium. Every time the upper hall was
used by fitness classes, floor vibration was noticed in the hall below and glazed
exterior walls started to vibrate horizontally. Additional effects included rattling
of doors and shutters and clattering of equipment. An investigation was carried
out to determine the dynamical qualities of the floor. It was established that the
fundamental frequency was about 4.9 Hz. When people jumped with a frequency
of approximately 2.48 Hz, resonance was excited by the second harmonic. In
order to avoid annoying effects and possible fatigue damage the fundamental
frequency was improved to 7.3 Hz by increasing the floors stiffness.
Other cases discussed in this paper showed similar problems caused by low
fundamental frequency and excitation by humans which resulted in significant
modifications being made.
1.6.3 Consideration of Vibration in Design

Fisher and West (2001) divided the consideration of human response to floor
vibration into four major steps. First of all the natural frequency should be
calculated which is affected by acceleration due to gravity, Youngs modulus,
moment of inertia, supported weight and the span of the structure. Afterwards the
initial amplitude should be calculated. Damping of a floor is another essential
factor as it affects the duration and nature of the vibration: physical tests showed
damping percentages ranging from 3% for bare floors to 6% for finished floors
and up to 13% for finished floors with partitions. The fourth factor is a standard of
measure involving the previous three figures. For this purpose graphs are used,
10
Lukas Wolski
with axes showing the frequency and displacement amplitude. The human
response to these factors is then plotted.
The adverse effects and therefore the necessary avoidance of resonance were
illustrated in a report by Cooney and King (1988). It was claimed that, due to
resonance, the motion of a floor may be magnified by up to 20 times its static load
condition. A significant increase in acceleration, velocity and displacement
occurs; an effect which should be avoided by all means. For this purpose the
authors provided a design method to identify a possible risk of resonance for
floors: specifically, vibration induced by human activities. First the expected load
of the area including all participants and their activities had to be assessed.
Occupants activities will lead to an appropriate forcing frequency and their total
load in combination with a particular factor will give the dynamic load. Special
literature, for example the BS 6472 (1992), will provide values for the acceptable
limiting of acceleration. The final steps are the determination of the total floor
load including the dynamical load component and further the calculation of the
fundamental frequency for the structure. With the help of these data and a special
equation presented by the authors an initial check of potential resonance may be
made. Where the acceptable level of acceleration was exceeded, increasing the
stiffness was suggested along with relocating or controlling the activity or just
accepting the discomfort.
The Canadian Institute for Scientific and Technical Information (1980) published
a paper to provide a better understanding of vibration due to dynamical loads. The
paper was specified to human induced vibration and gave a general overview of
this topic. The maximum walking frequency for a person was given as 3 Hz; the
approximate frequency for jumping was 5 Hz, but as also told, these values were
unlikely to be reached. Also included were approximated equations for the
fundamental frequency of simply supported, clamped and cantilever beams and
uniaxial plates. Furthermore the relationships between static and dynamic
deformation and vibration behaviour under periodic and single loads were shown
by equations and examples. The example given of a group jumping in a
gymnasium clarified that static deflection remains unchanged for different
11
Lukas Wolski
fundamental frequencies. However, the dynamical deflection increased for a

reduced frequency and reached extreme values in the case of resonance.
Crist and Shaver (1976) complained about insufficient investigation of floor

vibration in national codes. The accuracy of an evaluation for floor vibration can
be complicated by such factors as a lack of necessary components. In addition the
structure location, the type of structure, the type of occupancy and damping
should be considered in literature. An additional cause for concern was the
insufficient provision of data for evaluation which must then be qualified through
further research.
Furthermore, this publication explained the complexity surrounding the
determination of human activity and occupant response. Both are random
variables. The dynamic load caused by the former depends on varying
characteristic factors including walking gait, variation in weight, heel-to-ball of
foot contact and footwear. Influences on the perception go beyond the technical
values of frequency, direction and duration to encompass psychological factors in
form of mental state, motivation and experience and the physical factors of sound
and sight.
1.6.4 Two Way Hollow Decks

An overview of the general structural performance of biaxial hollow section slabs
of the type Cobiax produces is presented by Pfeffer (2002), who investigated the
slabs bond between reinforcement and concrete, flexure load-bearing capacity,
deflection and punching behaviour. Initial tests showed that due to the contact of
spheres with reinforcement the bond between reinforcement and concrete
decreased in these areas. This led to a development of reduction factors and
furthermore to a suggestion for improving slab design by relocating the spheres
from the reinforcement. However, the flexure load-bearing capacity of a two-axis
hollow slab is comparable to a solid slab. If the concrete compression zone is
above the sphere, it can be dimensioned as a rectangular cross-section by means
of the usual methods. As a result of the decreased self-weight the bending
performance of a hollow section slab is better than a solid slab. This occurs up to
12
Lukas Wolski
an external load-to-self weight ratio of 1:5. In case of punching it was discovered

that load capacity is approximately 50% lower if spheres are included. To avoid
this disadvantage, it is recommended that spheres are removed from inside the
punching area. This results in a similar punching capacity to solid slabs and
allows for a common punching design.
Another structural behaviour, the transverse force capacity, was investigated by

Schnellenbach-Held (2003). A comparison between biaxial hollow section slabs
and conventional concrete solid slabs showed the differences in their shear force
performance. Though the load-bearing capacity before and after shear crack
formation was similar, the failure load of the lightweight slabs was about 45%
lower than the breaking load achieved with solid slabs. This can be explained by
the reduced concrete area which decreases the transmission of tensile stresses. For
slabs without shear reinforcement, this is the main impact on transverse force
capacity.
1.6.5 Comparison of FEM and Field Tests

The results discussed in this research can be compared to the real behaviour of
Cobiax slabs. Emad El-Dardiry et al. (2002) ran an investigation which yielded
good results. He and his colleagues compared measured natural frequencies of an
existing building with values calculated by different finite element models. For
this purpose and as a part of the European Concrete Building Project (ECBP) a
realistic office building was constructed inside the BRE Cardington Laboratory. It
was a seven-storey in-situ concrete building consisting of long-span flat slabs
supported by columns designed to Eurocode 2. Each floor was 3.75m high, giving
a total height of 26.25 m. The building had three bays of 7.50 m constituting a
width of 22.50 m and four bays of 7.50 m making a length of 30.00 m. All slabs
were designed as reinforced concrete flat slabs with 0.25m thickness. The
intended imposed load was 2.5 kN/m.
After finishing the construction, Building Research Establishment Ltd conducted
dynamic tests on the floors. The tests involved monitoring the acceleration of the
centre of each floor area in response to a heel-drop. The response was then
13
Lukas Wolski
converted to an autospectrum using a Fast Fourier Transform procedure and the

dominant natural frequency was identified. All seven floors were covered by
measurements from 11 different locations on each floor. The measurements
provided a basis for evaluating the quality of different FE models. Consequently,
FE analysis of several commonly used models was conducted, and the numerical
and experimental results compared. The engineers used the FE software LUSAS
and modelled different approaches to floor-column connection.
One result of this investigation was that, while the different models used in this
study give different frequencies, the mode shapes are similar in a global sense. All
approaches had a variance of between 2% and 17% from the measured values.
The average difference was 12%. Another conclusion of a prior investigation was
the negligible effect of mesh size on dynamic behaviour. In case of natural
frequency all three meshes considered had no significant impact. However, they
affected the appearance of the mode shapes and so a fine mesh was used.
A similar comparison was performed by Williams et al. (1993). Tests were carried
out on reinforced and prestressed concrete floors of various configurations,
covering the full range of spans and thicknesses encountered in typical structures.
Newly cast, bare floors as well as already finished floors including false floors
and services were tested. The building types tested included offices and car parks.
These types are structurally quite similar with the exception of the lack of any
finishes on the floor of the car park, which results in lower damping values.
The experimental set-up used a hammer test, in which a soft-tipped hammer
generates the input excitation through a striking motion. By using other
experimental equipment general vibration qualities such as natural frequencies,
mode shapes or damping ration were determined. A single bay within the test
floor was chosen as the test panel and divided into a 5 x 5 grid of equally spaced
points. Afterwards every point was investigated five times to obtain an averaged
response for each specific point. Later a finite element model was created using IDEAS finite element software to compare the gained values.
A detailed comparison was given here for the specific example of a car park in
Wycombe. The car park consisted of a 0.21m thick slab, supported by posttensioned beams along column lines.
14
Lukas Wolski
The results of this comparison show that the computer model gives very good
estimates for the first three frequencies. All three frequencies are quite similar to
those investigated. The averaged difference between both results is about 4%.
It was supposed that, due to the increasing importance of accurately representing
the boundary condition, natural frequencies of higher modes would exhibit less
similarity. However, as when assessing potential human discomfort due to
vibration only the first few frequencies are important, the investigation concluded
that it is possible to obtain a reasonable estimate of the dynamic characteristics of
a floor by using finite element software.
Osborne and Ellis (1990) have presented a study of vibration design and testing of
long-span lightweight floors, focussing on the estimation and evaluation of floor
design. One major objective was the comparison between simplified hand
calculations, computer supported calculations and accurate tests on-site. It was
shown that all three, and especially the latter cases, predict similar values; the
estimated frequency of a computer analysis was just 0.16 Hz (approximate 3%)
higher than measured frequency.
Another interesting finding of this study was the change in dynamic behaviour
from the bare floor to a finished floor including a false floor, service installations
and fire protection. Although the finished floor showed only a small increase of
damping and stiffness, qualitative observation by people performing a heel drop
test agreed an improved perception.
The vibration assessment floor from Ove Arup & Partners (2004) provides
particularly useful information because of its strong resemblance to the Cobiax
flat slab system. The report includes the results of an investigation into the
vibration behaviour of a floor for a typical hospital. For this case an idealised area
of hospital floor was assumed. Its properties included 400mm thickness, 315mm
ball size and 3 x 3 square bays. Each bay had a span of 9m x 9m. The imposed
loads were estimated as realistic in-service values averaged over the entire floor
area. Using the finite element software MSC NASTRAN, a model was created to
analyse the floors dynamic performance. The slab was modelled as a 400mm
thick solid slab and its specific qualities were considered by a reduced stiffness
15
Lukas Wolski
and mass. The analysis showed that the fundamental frequency of this floor is
11.8Hz. Furthermore a footfall response analysis was carried out to obtain the
root-mean-square (r.m.s.) velocity of the floor. Afterwards all results were
compared with a floor of 400mm solid concrete. The first natural frequency
reduces to 10.4Hz, a decrease of 12%. The responses for Bubbledeck slabs are
16% higher than those for a solid slab of the same 400mm thickness.
1.6.6 Determination of Frequency

Mazumdar (1971) determined the fundamental frequency of elastic plates of
arbitrary shape by aid of constant deflection lines. For this purpose he assumed
the classical small-deflection theory to be valid. His method for the case of
elliptical plates was illustrated specifically because of its increased complexity
compared to other shapes. The assumption that the lines of equal deflection also
had an elliptical shape was made in response to the problem of determining the
resulting time-dependent deflection field. This approximation is then only valid
for slender elliptical plates, making this method only practical for thin plates.
After the determination of all necessary dynamical equations, two examples were
calculated. One plate was supposed to have clamped edges and the second was
simply supported, an estimation which had previously only been published in one
work. Furthermore the author compared his method with results already
established in literature. For small ratios of both semi-lengths this comparison
showed very similar outcomes to the other present values.
Jones (1975) used this method and extended the comparison. He investigated
simplified calculations for the fundamental frequency of structures with different
shapes and boundary conditions such as equilateral triangular, rectangular or
semicircular plates. Afterwards he also compared these approximations with
computed and more exact values. As before, the results of this comparison were
very good. For the example of a clamped quadratic plate, the difference between
the two estimations was 0.05%.
16
Lukas Wolski
Magrab (1976) adopted a different approach to estimating the natural frequencies

for plates. He derived an expression for orthotropic rectangular plates with simply
supported, elastically supported or clamped boundary conditions. Instead of using
existing estimation methods and thin-plate theory which relies on a length-tothickness ratio he solved the problem with another mathematical technique: the
Mindlin-Timoshenko theory. This theory is an improvement on the EulerBernoulli beam theory, which condensed a beam to a 1-D structure. Another
assumption of this theory is that the plane cross-section of a beam remains plane
and normal to the reference line when the beam deforms due to bending.
In addition to this hypothesis Timoshenko's theory considers sheer and rotational
inertia effects and the resulting deformation. Comparing an example with other
estimations which use the thin-plate theory yielded analogical values with
differences between 0.08% and 3.7%. Excepting the estimate values of Elishakoff
(1974), all other fundamental frequencies are higher than those calculated by the
author. This results from the consideration of transverse sheer and rotary inertia
which also imbibes vibration energy additional to bending as required by the thinplate theory.
The influence of Timoshenkos additional consideration, rotational inertia and

sheer deformation for rectangular plates, was formerly investigated by Mindlin,
Schacknow and Deresiewicz (1956) who determined a method to obtain natural
frequencies with coupled modes. Special regard was given for the case of a plate
with one pair of parallel free edges and the other pair simply supported.
Leissa (1973) presented a study of approximate formulas for free vibration of

rectangular plates. It was the first compilation of all 21 cases which involved all
possible combination of classical boundary conditions, like clamped, simply
supported and free edges. Amongst other techniques he used the Ritz method or
the beam function for this purpose. This led to the production of a set of 21 tables
for the estimation of the first 9 modes for each plate including different length-towidth ratios. Furthermore the effect of changing Poissons ratio on the natural
frequencies was presented. In every case the frequency depends on Poissons
ratio. An example of a plate supported on two parallel edges by simply-supports
17
2. Human Response and Acceptance Criteria
Lukas Wolski
and on the other a pair of free edges showed that increasing Poissons ratio caused
a decrease in natural frequency. Other objectives of this investigation were the
evaluation of accuracy compared to the referenced Warburtons formulas for
natural frequencies and the effect of changing edge condition upon the frequencies
and their accuracy.

Evaluation of measured or calculated values of floor vibration must be carried out
in order to predict its influence on the surrounding environment. This requirement
creates the need for specific acceptance criteria. It is possible to classify the
effects floor vibration has on its environment into three main areas:
- Overstressing of structural members
- Physiological effect on people
- Impact of production processes with sensitive equipment or susceptible
machinery in general
(Bachmann and Ammann, 1987)
Of these three, most attention is paid to human response. This is because damage
and fatigue failure of structural elements due to walking-induced floor vibration
are unusual, and every different type of machinery has its own very specific
requirements. Different acceptance criteria and recommendations have been
developed to measure human response. Unfortunately, though, it is not possible to
provide exact limit values and this can obviate perception of motion. As the
variety of human responses to floor vibration varies greatly, these criteria can only
utilise reference values gained by experience or field tests. The complexity of both
perception levels and human sensitivity to vibration is illustrated by a high
number of interrelated factors. Among them are:
Direction of motion:
Humans
evaluate
every
direction
of
motion
differently. Generally vertical foot-to-head vibration

is considered more annoying than horizontal chest18
to-back
Lukas Wolski
vibration
(Cooney
and
King
1988).
However, every direction of motion has to be

considered because of its potential occurrence.
While horizontal vibration causes only small
concern in offices and other workplaces, its
importance increases in the design of residences and
hotels where sleeping comfort must be considered.
Personal characteristics:
Different responses are given depending on the age,

sex and level of concentration of the subjects as well
as those of surrounding community.
Timing and duration:
Motions at night are less tolerated than those

occurring during the day. Furthermore continuous
motion (steady-state) is more annoying than motion
caused by infrequent impact (transient).
Expectation:
If subjects are forewarned of vibration, their

perception will be less sensitive
Current activity:
Different levels of acceptance exist for office work,

physical
work,
resting,
dining
and
dancing.
Acceptance levels are also affected by the

surrounding environment (e.g. home, office or
gymnasium).
Since the pioneering work of Reiher and Meister (1931), most vibration criteria
provide graphs defining regions of acceptable and unacceptable vibration. Usually
these are plotted in frequency versus peak acceleration due to gravity of the floor
vibration, but other numerous parameters such as velocity or displacement of the
treated floor can be included. On the graph, single lines represent a constant level
of human reaction (isoperceptibility lines) with the region above a line denoting
unacceptable vibration. These act as boundaries between different levels of
perception.
19
Lukas Wolski
2.1 Recommendations in Codes

2.1.1 British Standard
In British Standard BS6399-1:1996 Annex A, two different approaches are
recommended for the design of domestic and residential structures, especially
single family buildings. In areas subjected to dancing or jumping there can be an
increased risk of unpleasant floor movement and even resonance may occur. In
order to avoid this phenomenon, it is recommended that vertical natural frequency
is limited to at least to 8.4Hz and horizontal natural frequency to a minimum of
4.0 Hz. These frequencies should be calculated for the empty structure.
Another approach is to consider dynamic loads as well as dead and static imposed
loadings during the design stage. Deformation due to dynamic loads should not
exceed limits appropriate to the building or structure type.
No detailed specifications are provided for lightweight and long span structures.
Only the general advice of taking floor vibration into account and the
recommendation of specialist guidance documents are given:
Where lightweight and long span structures are used as concourses and public spaces,
they are likely to be subjected to inadvertent or deliberate synchronized movement by
people, causing dynamic excitation. The design provisions should take account of the
nature and intended use of the structure, the potential number of people and their possible
behaviour. Structural design should be undertaken with the help of specialist advice and
specialist guidance documents, as required by the appropriate certifying authority.
A more detailed treatment of floor vibration is covered by the British Standard

BS 6472:1992 Guide to evaluation of human exposure to vibration in buildings
(1 Hz to 80 Hz). This guide has a general approach, for application to many
vibratory environments. It is applicable to vibrations transmitted through the
supporting surface to the body as a whole by considering different positions and
all three axes, as defined in figure 2.1.
Within the range of 1 to 80 Hz, the guide also considers different types of
structures including offices, residential buildings or critical working areas such
20
Lukas Wolski
x-axis: back to chest

y-axis: right side to left side
z-axis: foot to head
Figure 2.1 BS 6472 (1992) Coordinate systems for vibration influencing humans
as operating theatres. All allowable vibrations are provided in curves of

annoyance for humans in terms of direction of transmission, frequency and
acceleration or velocity. While acceleration is given as r.m.s. acceleration (rootmean-square acceleration), velocity is specified as a peak value. In terms of
human response the British Standard divides vibrations into two classes:
impulsive and continuous vibration.
Impulsive vibration is defined as a rapid build-up to and decrease from a peak; for
example vibration caused by the impact of a single heavy object on a floor. This
type may also consist of several cycles of vibration providing that duration is
short (less than approximately 2 seconds). The other category describes
continuous vibration which remains uninterrupted over a certain time period (for
example vibration caused by a group of people walking). Their different
consideration is given by individual multiplication factors shown in table 2.1.
These factors are used to multiply the base curves and obtain the according curve
for a specific case.
21
Lukas Wolski
Multiplying factors
(see notes 1 and 5)
Place
Time
Exposure to continuous
vibration [16 h day, 8 h night]
(see note 2 and Appendix B)
Critical working areas

(e.g. hospital operating
theatres, precision
laboratories
(see notes 3 and 10)
Day
Night
Day
2 to 4 (see note 4)
60 to 90 (see notes 4 and 9,

and Appendix B)
Night
1.4
20
Day
128 (see note 6)
Night
128
Day
8 (see note 7)
128 (see notes 6 and 7)
Night
128
Residential
Office Day
Workshops
Impulsive vibration excitation

with up to 3 occurrences
(see note 8)
NOTE 1 Table 5 leads to magnitudes of vibration below which the probability of adverse comments is low (any
acoustical noise caused by structural vibration is not considered).
NOTE 2 Doubling of the suggested vibration magnitudes may result in adverse comment and this may increase
significantly if the magnitudes are quadrupled (where available, dose/response curves may be consulted).
NOTE 3 Magnitudes of vibration in hospital operating theatres and critical working places pertain to periods of time
when operations are in progress or critical work is being performed. At other times magnitudes as high as those for
residences are satisfactory provided there is due agreement and warning.
NOTE 4 Within residential areas people exhibit wide variations of vibration tolerance. Specific values are dependent
upon social and cultural factors, psychological attitudes and expected degree of intrusion.
NOTE 5 Vibration is to be measured at the point of entry to the entry to the subject. Where this is not possible then it
is essential that transfer functions be evaluated.
NOTE 6 The magnitudes for vibration in offices and workshop areas should not be increased without considering
the possibility of significant disruption of working activity.
NOTE 7 Vibration acting on operators of certain processes such as drop forges or crushers, which vibrate working
places, may be in a separate category from the workshop areas considered in Table 3. The vibration magnitudes
specified in relevant standards would then apply to the operators of the exciting processes.
NOTE 8 Appendix C contains guidance on assessment of human response to vibration induced by blasting.
NOTE 9 When short term works such as piling, demolition and construction give rise to impulsive vibrations it should
be borne in mind that undue restriction on vibration levels can significantly prolong these operations and result in
greater annoyance. In certain circumstances higher magnitudes can be used.
NOTE 10 In cases where sensitive equipment or delicate tasks impose more stringent criteria than human comfort,
the corresponding more stringent values should be applied. Stipulation of such criteria is outside the scope of this
standard.
Table 2.1 BS 6472 (1992) Multiplying factors
Figure 2.2 shows one example of a multiplied curve where the frequency is
plotted against the r.m.s. acceleration. It is recommended that the frequencyacceleration combination is kept below the line which corresponds to the relevant
case, therefore minimising adverse comments or complaints of vibration.
22
Lukas Wolski
Figure 2.2 BS 6472 (1992) Building vibration z-axis curves for acceleration (r.m.s.)
Another method for specifying satisfactory vibration magnitudes is provided in

Appendices A and B. By calculating and comparing the vibration dose value with
limit values presented in tables it is also possible to evaluate a structures
vibration; however, this approach is exclusively provided for residential buildings
and is therefore only applicable to a small amount of problem areas.
23
Lukas Wolski
2.1.2 German Standard

The German Institute for Standardisation published a similar code entitled DIN
4150-2 (1999) Erschtterungen im Bauwesen; Einwirkungen auf den Menschen
in Gebuden. This code provides recommendations concerning humans
vibration perception in residential and similarly used buildings and is applicable
to periodic as well as non-periodic vibrations. It also deals with frequencies from
1 to 80 Hz and considers all three axes of a human body as well as different types
of buildings; but in contrast to the English code, the German DIN uses a modified
parameter called KB value, which depends on the frequency of motion and was
established to assess the acceptance of motion by limiting the frequency to
specified values (see table 2.2).
As in the BS6399-1(1996), the limit criteria in the DIN 4150-2 (1999) depends on
occupancy and time of day.
Day
Night
Place
Au
Ao
Ar
Au
Ao
Ar
Areas with commercial buildings and as

an exception residencies for occupants or
directors of these companies
0.4
0.2
0.3
0.6
0.15
Areas with commercial buildings

predominantly
0.3
0.15
0.2
0.4
0.1
Areas without predominance of commercial

buildings as well as residences
0.2
0.1
0.15
0.3
0.07
Areas with residential buildings

predominantly
0.15
0.07
0.1
0.2
0.05
Critical areas (e.g. hospitals)
0.1
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.05
Table 2.2 Extract of DIN 4150-2 (1999); reference values A for residential and similarly used
buildings
24
Lukas Wolski
For the comparison of measured and recommended limit values two different KB
parameters are used. These are represented by KBFmax for the maximum motion
and KBFTr , which is an averaged value spread over the assessment time. These
two values must be estimated for each of the three axes in which motion may
occur. The worst case becomes decisive.
Once both critical values are known, a fixed procedure shown in figure 2.3 can be
applied. KBFmax and in special cases KBFTr need only be compared to reference
values Au and Ao and a final evaluation is then given.
Figure 2.3 DIN 4150-2 (1999) progression of assessment procedure
This method of predicting vibration acceptance is more complex than that of the
British code. The calculation of all necessary values requires a lot of time and
precise knowledge of the circumstances, such as duration of impact. It seems to
be a method for evaluating measured values rather than calculated values from the
design stage.
25
Lukas Wolski
2.2 Recommendations in Literature

Besides national codes and standards, many independent and individual
recommendations are available. These are partly developed from practical tests on
subjects and partly gained by experience of existing buildings. The following
paragraphs will deliver an overview of some of the recommendations found in
literature.
The most frequently cited reference in the field of human acceptance and floor
vibration is Reiher and Meister (1931).
These authors carried out the first
research on this topic by investigating how horizontal as well as vertical vibration

affects humans. Subjects were placed on shaking tables which varied in amplitude
and frequency. Afterwards, they had to rate the motion using one of six
categories. This information then made it possible to plot the relationship between
amplitude and frequency in relation to human perception. It should be mentioned
here, though, that due to the long duration (approximate 5min.) of each test the
results should be applied to continuous rather than impulsive vibration. The
ReiherMeister scale for vertical vibration is shown in figure 2.4.
Figure 2.4 Reiher-Meister scale
26
Lukas Wolski
Lenzen (1966) determined that damping and mass, and not stiffness, were the
most important parameters in preventing unacceptable floor vibration caused by
walking. He suggested that if vibration is reduced by damping to a negligible
quantity in 5 cycles the human will not respond, whereas if it persists beyond 12
cycles a steady-state vibration is noticeable.
He also modified the Reiher-Meister scale by increasing displacement by a factor
of 10 (Figure 2.5). The difference results from discriminative human sensitivity
against the duration of vibration. In contrast to Reiher and Meisters steady-state
vibration, Lenzen developed this criterion for transit vibrations which have a
reduced effect on subjects.
Figure 2.5 Graph of reduced human response
27
Lukas Wolski
Allen and Rainer (1976) developed annoyance criteria for walking vibrations in
terms of acceleration and damping based on tests using 42 long-span floor
systems. These were then incorporated into the Canadian Standards Associations
national code. The proposed criterion (figure 2.6) is an extension of Lenzens
work and considers continuous vibration (10 to 30 cycles) as well as walking
vibration. They are suggested for use with quiet human occupancies, for example
residences, offices or schoolrooms. Pernica and Allen (1982) modified the criteria
for active occupancies such as shopping centres and car parks by increasing the
limits by a factor of 3.
Figure 2.6 Annoyance criteria by Allen and Rainer
Interpretation of this graph requires care, because both types of line are a criterion
for floor vibration. The continuous vibrations are caused by a person walking on a
floor, as are the walking vibrations. The difference between these types is that
instead of the continuous vibration line which uses average peak acceleration to
assess acceptability, the walking vibration lines represents the initial peak
acceleration resulting from a heel drop test.
28
Lukas Wolski
Allen and Murray (1993) mentioned the necessity of the first three harmonics in
avoiding resonance. The third harmonic should be considered for a single person
walking with normal velocity. For jogging or more than one person, only the first
two harmonics are important. If the number of persons walking on a structure
increases then the dynamic loading does increase, but at the same time lack of
coherence at higher harmonics increases. However, generally such cases are rare
enough to not be a problem in practice.
The proposed design criterion for the acceptance of floor vibration is provided
through different approaches. One of them can be expressed in terms of
fundamental frequency and is given by:
K
f 0 2.86 ln
Where f0 is the fundamental frequency, W is the weight and K is a constant given

in table 2.3 which also provides approximate values for the damping ratio .
K
kN
Offices, residences, churches
58
0.03*
Shopping Malls
20
0.02
Footbridges
0.01
*0.05 for full-height partitions, 0.02 for floors with few non-structural components
(ceilings, ducts, partitions, etc.) as can occur in churches
Table 2.3 Values of K and
Bolton (1994) emphasised the importance of acceleration for the perception of

floor vibration by using the example of passengers in an aircraft. As the craft flies
with high and constant speed, the humans inside do not feel any movement. It is
the change of velocity, that is, the acceleration, which is perceived. The
acceleration is directly proportional to the square of the frequency and to its
amplitude of displacement.
Acceleration = - (2f) x
29
Lukas Wolski
Provided with knowledge of the fundamental frequency and acceleration due to

gravity, it is possible to evaluate the effect of floor vibration on humans. To this
end, Bolton proposed to divide the range of frequencies into two areas: from 0 to
10 Hz and above 10 Hz. The relationship between acceleration and human
perception is presented in table 2.4 below:
acceleration
[m/s]
f0 10 Hz
f0 > 10 Hz
barely perceptible
0.03
0.0005
clearly felt
0.10
0.0013
unpleasent
0.50
0.0067
entirely unacceptable
2.00
0.0133
Table 2.4 Human perception criteria by Bolton
A more general recommendation was proposed by Bachmann and Annmann

(1987). They argued that due to the lack of exact knowledge concerning various
floor parameters and their inter-relations, it would be more practical to provide
rough limit values for the designers use. Their recommended values for natural
frequency as well as the acceleration of floor vibration are shown in table 2.5.
The fact that the frequencies increase for different construction materials is due to
their decrease in stiffness, mass and damping.
f0 [Hz]
acceleration [m/s]
reinforced
concrete
prestressed
concrete
composite
steel
Offices
> 7.5
> 8.0
> 8.5
> 9.0
0.5 - 1.0
Gymnasia and
sport halls
> 7.5
> 8.0
> 8.5
> 9.0
0.2
Dancing and
concert halls
> 6.5
> 7.0
> 7.5
> 8.0
0.5 - 1.0
Table 2.5 Overall acceptance levels for various types of environment
Similarly to Allen and Murray (1993), Bachmann and Annmann also mentioned
observing more than frequency; while more active areas like sport halls, dancing
or concert halls should be considered using the second harmonic, they propose
30
Lukas Wolski
high tuning with respect to the third harmonic of load-time function for offices or
other quiet working places.
Other literature presents this topic with less accuracy and provides only rough
limit values for consideration during the design of floor systems.
For the prevention of resonance Fisher and West (2001) recommend avoiding
natural frequencies of between 1 and 4 Hz for walking areas and 5 Hz for
dancing areas.
Cooney and King (1988) mentioned that crowds involved in activities such as
dancing or gymnastic can be synchronised by music or other means up to
frequencies of 6 Hz. Beyond this limit they become uncoordinated and a random
forcing function results. Therefore they suggest checking floors with natural
frequency below 6 Hz and possible support of assembly occupancies for
resonance.
Furthermore, Hanes (1970) reported that studies using automobile and aircraft
passengers showed that the natural frequency of human internal organs is between
5-8 Hz. Therefore, floor systems with natural frequencies in that range could
possibly cause human discomfort and should be avoided.
Morrison (2006) specified the interfering frequencies of individual sub systems
within the body. Some examples are the abdomen-thorax region, 3 Hz, the spine,
5 Hz or the heart, 7 Hz. The frequencies at which the whole human body is most
sensitive are 3 - 6 Hz and 10 - 14 Hz.
2.3 Summary
The effects of vibration on humans vary so widely that evaluation is very complex
and depends on many factors. In general, it is difficult to set accurate limits to any
parameters. However, past research has attempted to obtain boundaries for
different kinds of structures and activities. These should result in improved
ambience in new structures as well as decreasing the chance of justifiable
complaints made by users.
31
3. Simplified Hand-Calculation Methods
Lukas Wolski

In the past, there have been many attempts to find simplified methods for
calculating the fundamental frequency of structures. Before finite element
software and computer packages, which predict all necessary information
accurately within a few seconds, this information needed to be estimated. Even
today, when computers are used universally, additional hand calculations are still
recommended because they help to give an initial assessment and are able to
forecast critical areas before or during the design stage. Alternatively, they might
be used as an additional check on results calculated by a computer (Weber 2002).
Simple equations and tables make it possible to estimate natural frequencies in a
very short space of time. Furthermore, only a few predictions are necessary, these
being material properties such as the Young's modulus or the Poisson ratio and
geometrical properties such as thickness of the structure or the length of span.
Equipped with this data and a simple calculator, fundamental frequency can be
predicted in seconds, provided the structure is not too complex. As the frequencies
of complex structures would require huge efforts to hand-calculate, methods are
only published for simple models such as one-span or continuous beams, one-span
slabs or chimneys and pylons. The simplification is usually based on beam theory
and can easily be adopted for these kinds of structures.
Another simplification of these methods is the assumption of boundary condition.
In reality, the grade of restraint for each support is unclear. Obviously in practice
the support conditions are rarely simply supported or truly fixed, but in
simplifications all supports are assumed to be 100% simply supported or clamped.
This produces only small inaccuracies compared with the real dynamic behaviour
of structures.
Other factors can also affect the accuracy between model and real behaviour.
There are some influences which a simplification cannot or will not predict. An
example of one such influence is the dissipation of energy due to contributions
from coating or a suspended ceiling. This increases the damping ratio and
therefore counteracts the vibration. Brownjohn (2001) also highlighted that a
certain amount of vibration is reduced by occupants standing on the floor, a factor
which cannot be predicted in hand calculations. Another difficulty is the nonlinearity which may occur after cracking. Once the concrete starts to crack, the
32
Lukas Wolski
effective stiffness is in flux. Due to the smaller amount of concrete cross-section,

the moment of inertia decreases, resulting in a higher natural frequency.
These are a few circumstances which prevent 100% accurate values from being
made; nevertheless, in many cases simplified estimations can provide good
practical results and therefore initial ideas concerning the dynamical behaviour of
the structure. Thus, problematical areas can be identified in an early design stage.
This chapter deals with simplified methods for calculating the fundamental
frequency of slabs. For this purpose a summary of some existing literature
providing equations or tables is presented and is checked against their accuracy.
Therefore, calculations for a set of common structural slabs considering free
undamped natural frequency for rectangular isotropic plates are carried out
(Appendix A). Afterwards each example is compared against more exact values
calculated by finite element software, enabling a general evaluation of their
practical use to be undertaken.
3.1 Common Mathematic Techniques

When estimating the necessary values of eigenvalues, natural frequency or mode
shapes, simplified methods usually involve different mathematical techniques.
The main ideas of two different approaches, the Stodola method and the Rayleigh
method, are described briefly below.
Referring to Caverson., Waldron and Williams (1994) the best-known approach is
the Stodola method. This is an iterative method, in which the shape mode of an
element is estimated and the initial forces associated with this mode shape are
determined. A static analysis is carried out concerning these forces, providing a
deflected shape for the condition. Instead of the previous estimated mode shape,
the new deflection shape is now used for the same procedure. These iterations are
then repeated until a sufficiently accurate solution is achieved.
The Rayleigh and Rayleigh-Ritz methods are also widely used to predict the
natural frequency of structures. The Rayleigh method is based on the principle of
33
Lukas Wolski
energy conservation: if an undamped freely vibrating spring-mass system is

assumed, no absorption of energy will take place and so the amount will remain
constant. The relationship between the involved energies, potential and kinetic,
requires their maximum values to be equal. The equations for both energies can
then be computed and an equation for the fundamental frequency of a one-masssystem formed. This principle is then used when analysing systems with a greater
degree of freedom. In this case, the mode shape of the fundamental frequency
needs to be assumed first. Further on, it should be noted that, while the amplitude
of motion varies with time, the shape of vibration does not, leading to an
expression by a shape function. The assumed shape function simplifies the
structure to a single degree of freedom system. The initial method of equating the
energies can then be applied and the fundamental frequency calculated (Clough
and Penzien 1993). The Rayleigh-Ritz method is an extension of Rayleigh's
method and determines the natural frequency in the second or higher order. It uses
the basic concept of Rayleigh's method and minimises the total energy to its
original amount after adding the assumed shape function to gain the lowest
frequency. This method can be applied iteratively as well as partially. The most
important step within the method is to make a realistic assumption of the mode
shapes in order to avoid a high number of iterations.
3.2 Formulas and Tables for the Calculation of Fundamental Frequency

3.2.1 Equivalent Beam Method
A widely used technique for determining the fundamental frequency of a floor is
the equivalent beam method (Lenzen 1966). However, the assessment of beams is
only recommended for the estimation of one-way spanning systems and not for
two-way spanning floors. For this reason it is more often used for composite
floors than concrete slabs.
Referring to Caverson, Waldron and Williams (1994), this equation should
provide an accurately estimated frequency for composite as well as one-way
spanning concrete floors. The first natural frequency is determined by:
f0 =
2a
34
EI
m
(1)
Lukas Wolski
3.2.2 Equivalent Plate Approach

In addition to the equivalent beam method only applicable to one-way spanning
concrete slabs, Williams and Waldron (1994) as well as Jeary (1997) presented an
equation for the fundamental frequency of simply supported two-way spanning
slabs. Thanks to the influence of all three dimensions and the flexure rigidity of
the plate D, it incorporates biaxial slab properties and provides good solutions.
f0 =
1 1
+
l2 l2
y
x
D
m
(2)
3.2.3 Concrete Society Method

Another calculation procedure for biaxial slabs was proposed by the Concrete
Society (2005). As with the equivalent plate approach, it uses an approximation of
the equivalent beam method and considers the increased stiffness of a two-way
spanning floor. This leads to two independent orthogonal modes occurring for
both directions individually. The lower of both natural frequencies can be
considered as the fundamental frequency for this slab. A general advantage of this
method is its multifarious application to different types of slabs including solid,
ribbed and waffle, and its additional consideration of several bays for each
direction. However, the following equations are just presented for solid slabs in
one direction (x-direction). The characteristics of the second direction mode are
determined by interchanging the x- and y-subscripts in these equations.
The first step is to define the effective aspect ration of the slab by:
n l
x = x x
ly
EI y
EI x
(3)
Afterwards it is necessary to calculate the modification factor kx:
kx = 1 +
35
2x
(4)
Lukas Wolski
The natural frequency for slabs with perimeter supports is:

f x' = k x
EI y
ml y
(5)
For slabs without perimeter supports, the latter equation has to be modified by
calculation of an additional frequency fb:
fb =
EI x
4
ml x
4
1+
(6)
EI x l y
EI y l x4
The final natural frequency can now be obtained by:
'
'
f x = f x f x fb
1
1
+
nx n y
(7)
3.2.4 Static Deflection Method

As seen in paragraph 3.1, it is possible to calculate the natural frequency by aid of
the kinetic and potential energy within the structure. As a result of the associations
of both, kinetic energy with the motion of mass and potential energy with the
strain energy stored in the elastic structure during deformation, a relationship
between the natural frequency and the deflection of a structure exists. This
relationship can be used to calculate the fundamental frequency for structures
whose static deflection is known. The derivation of an equation for an example of
the spring-mass-system demonstrates the relationship well. The static deflection
of a mass attached on a spring is given by:
S =
m g
k
36
(8)
Lukas Wolski
The natural frequency is already known as:

f =
1
2
k
m
(9)
Now it is possible to incorporate equation 3.4.1 into equation 3.1 which gives:
f =
1
2
(10)
The final equation shows that only the acceleration due to gravity and the
maximum static deflection are required to obtain the fundamental frequency. But
due to an additional factor, the length of span is involved now, this method should
be more accurate than that of equation 1. Of course, this depends on the accuracy
of the estimated static deflection but the higher amount of necessary data used in
the calculation of static deflection allows this initial conclusion.
A modified version of this method was published by Blenvis (1979), who used the
expression derived by Mazumdar (1971) and modified by Jones (1975) for
calculating fundamental frequency. These earlier authors developed a method to
estimate natural frequency aided by the constant deflection lines of an element.
Although this equation was developed for clamped elliptic plates, it also predicts
the first frequency of plates of various shapes and boundary conditions. The new
equation is now:
f =
1.277 g
2
S
(11)
3.2.5 Approximation Presented by Hearmon

Hearmon (1959) presented approximations for the estimation of rectangular
orthotropic plates using the already derived expressions from Warburton (1954)
and extending them to orthotropic plates with a combination of clamped or
37
Lukas Wolski
supported edges. These approximations are based on the Rayleigh method and
assume that the nodal lines of the deflection are approximately parallel to the
sides of the slab. Furthermore, it is supposed that all three axes of a plate are rightangled to each other. With this criterion, and the assumption that the thickness of
the slab and its deflection are small, it is possible to apply a two-dimensional
treatment. This produces a simplified expression because the elastic properties of
third symmetry can be disregarded. Equation 12 and table 3.1 are modified for
non-orthotropic plates and lead to a value for their natural frequency.
f =
1
2
A 4 D B 4 D 2CD '
+ 4 + 2 2
a4
b
a b
m
(12)
With
E h3
G h2
D =
+
6
12 (1 2 )
'
boundary
conditions
(13)
4.730
4.730
151.3
4.730
12.30 2 (2 2)
3,4,5,...
4.730
12.30 2 (2 2)
2 2 ( 2 2 )( 2 2 )
4.730
4.730
12.301 (1 1)
3,4,5,...
3,4,5,...
3,4,5,...
2,3,4,...
2,3,4,...
3,4,5,...
12.30 02
2,3,4,...
202 (2 2)
3,4,5,...
2,3,4,...
2,3,4,...
2,3,4,...
2,3,4,...
2,3,4,...
2,3,4,...
2,3,4,...
21 (2 2)(1 1)
11 (1 1)(1 1)
1 02 ( 1 1 )
02 02
0 = (m 1)
1 = (m 0.75)
2 = (m 0.5)
0 = (n 1)
1 = (n 0.75)
2 = (n 0.5)
Table 3.1 Frequency paramenter provided by Hearmon
38
Lukas Wolski
3.2.6 Approximation Presented by Jnich

Another approximation that uses the Rayleigh method to solve the calculation of
fundamental frequency is presented by Jnich, who modified the double integral
of the potential as well as kinetic energy to gain a final equation for the
fundamental frequency. This equation also considers additional loadings.
Excepting static loads, this approximation makes it possible to include additional
uniform loads (e.g. floor pavement or tiling), point loads or even imposed loads.
These considerations are covered in an extra parameter determined by the kinetic
energy and are given by:
p
P
N = N0 1 + + w2P
g
g
(14)
Where p is the additional load (coating + imposed load), g is the mass of a slab, P
is the point load and wp is the displacement below the point load P.
A second parameter was derived from the potential energy to get a uniform
calculation. The K value consists of:
K =
K
K1
K
+ 2 2 2 + 43
4
a
a b
b
(15)
The necessary values for N0, K1, K2 and K3 can be taken from table 3.2, which
shows an extract providing eight different examples of support condition and their
corresponding parameters. The original table presented by Jnich includes 18
different set-ups of boundary condition with combinations of free, clamped and
simply supported edges.
With both parameters, N and K, and the equation presented below, the first natural
frequency may be estimated.
f0 =
D gK
h N
39
(16)
Lukas Wolski
Another advantage of this method is its capability of estimating the frequencies of

two-span slabs. Provided that both jointed edges of a slab have equal support
conditions, equation 16 can be modified to estimate the fundamental frequency
with:
f0 =
boundary
condition
D g ( ai2 K i )
(17)
h ( ai2 N i )
K1
K2
K3
N0
12.00
8.00
12.00
2.25
8.00
0.00
0.00
1.50
3.84
5.00
8.00
1.50
1.28
1.25
0.50
0.50
4.00
2.00
0.75
0.75
0.1667
0.0760
0.1667
0.50
0.50
0.25
0.50
0.25
0.25
Table 3.2 K and N parameters
40
Lukas Wolski
3.2.7 Estimation for Pin Supported Plates

Reed Jr. (1965) published a NASA report in which he presented and compared
two different approaches to calculating the natural frequency of rectangular plates
supported by isolated pins in each corner. The two approximate methods were
then developed using the Ritz method and a series solution to the differential
equation of motion. The general solution for this type of support can be gained by
treating a plate as those with supports along their entire perimeter. Afterwards
superpositions of the initial solutions must be done to satisfy the specific
conditions of the isolated pin supports.
Comparing both methods revealed a higher accuracy for the series solution but
also more difficulties in computing this approach. However, because of the need
for simplified hand estimation and the already existing frequency parameter, this
disadvantage can be disregarded here.
With both methods the natural frequency can be obtained by:
f =
Mode
h
2a
(18)
Dg
frequency paramenter
Ritz solution
Series solution
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
0.756
0.933
0.958
0.961
0.721
0.904
0.941
0.951
1.0
1.5
2.0
1.702
2.308
2.941
1.598
2.181
2.786
1.0
1.5
2.0
1.702
2.811
3.52
1.598
2.616
3.326
1.0
1.5
2.0
1.986
3.53
5.69
1.986
3.414
5.27
1.0
1.5
2.0
4.2
5.67
6.8
3.895
5.34
6.46
1.0
1.5
2.0
5.23
5.85
7.4
5.1
5.85
7.22
1.0
1.5
4.89
7.64
4.5
7.1
41
Table 3.3
Frequency parameters
for pin supports
Lukas Wolski
3.2.8 Compilation of Formulas by Bachmann

Walter Ammann and Hugo Bachmann, one of the most well-known authors in the
field of floor vibration issues, provided in their book a set of tables and charts for
estimating the natural frequencies of several structural systems. These were
informed by the partial differential equation of motion for free vibration. All
plates considered in these tables are assumed to be two-way spanning and have
boundary conditions of simply supported, clamped or free edges. One extract of
these tables is given in table 3.4. It includes simply supported, clamped and a mix
of both conditions and allows the calculation of the first two natural frequencies
of these samples.
fi =
i
a2
E h3
12 (1 - 2 ) m
support conditions
1,1 = 1.57 ( 1 + 2 )
1,1 = 6.28 ( 1 + 0.25 2 )
1,1 = 1.57 ( 1 + 4 2 )
1,1 = 1.57
1 + 2.5 2 + 5.14 4
2 ,1 = 6.28 1 + 0.625 2 + 0.321 4

1, 2 = 1.57
1 + 9.32 2 + 39 .06 4
1,1 = 1.57 5.14 + 3.13 2 + 5.14 4

2,1 = 9.82 1 + 0.298 2 + 0.132 4
1, 2 = 1.57 5.14 + 11.65 2 + 39.06 4
1,2
1 = 1,1 ; 2 = min
2,1
Table 3.4 Frequency paramenter provided by Bachmann
42
(19)
Lukas Wolski
For the case of continuous plates a chart is presented in figure 3.1, which helps to
estimate the first three natural frequencies of a two-span slab. However, because
this chart was developed for continuous beams, it is only applicable to onespanning slabs. One indication of this limitation is the simple assumption of
parameters in equation 20 without reference to plate characteristics such as the
plate rigidity or the width of the slab.
m
fn = n
2 EI
Figure 3.1 Frequency parameter for continuous slabs
43
(20)
Lukas Wolski
3.2.9 Compilation of Formulas by Blevins

Robert D. Blevins (1979) published a huge number of different sets for simplified
hand calculation in Formulas for Natural Frequency and Mode Shape. The book
is intended as a reference for engineers and provides tables for many different
structures and shapes. It also considers different boundary conditions and diverse
mode shapes. The tables are compiled from a variety of sources. In the case of
rectangular plates (Page 252-278) the layout is similar to that previously
considered with the addition of pin supported slabs.
The natural frequency can be estimated by:
i2
fi =
2
2 a
Simply Supported - Free Simply Supported - Free
Simply Supported - Simply Supported Simply Supported - Simply Supported
E h
2
12 m (1 - )
(21)
2
frequency parameter i
/b
1. Mode
2. Mode
3. Mode
4. Mode
5. Mode
0.4
9.760
11.040
15.060
21.710
31.180
39.240
2/3
9.698
12.980
22.950
39.110
40.360
42.690
6. Mode
9.631
16.140
36.730
38.950
46.740
70.740
1.5
9.558
21.620
38.720
54.840
65.790
87.630
2.5
9.484
33.620
38.360
75.200
86.970
130.400
/b
1. Mode
2. Mode
3. Mode
5. Mode
6. Mode
0.4
11.45
16.19
24.08
35.14
41.06
45.80
2/3
14.26
27.42
43.86
49.35
57.02
78.96
frequency parameter i2
4. Mode
19.74
49.35
49.35
78.96
98.70
98.70
1.5
32.08
61.69
98.70
111.00
128.30
177.70
2.5
71.56
101.16
150.50
219.60
256.60
286.20
Rectangular Plate, Corner Supports

a
/b
N-Bay Plate
12
22
7.12
15.80
1.5
8.92
21.50
9.29
27.50
2.5
9.39
35.50
Number of
Bays
22
23
7.18
16.30
16.30
16.27
16.76
33.28
24.41
25.41
28.39
33.02
33.41
37.20
41.41
41.86
45.43
12
Table 3.5 Frequency paramenter provided by Blenvis
44
1 bay = square plate
Lukas Wolski
3.3 Analysis of Results

The fundamental frequencies of 12 different Cobiax flat slabs were estimated by
simplified hand calculation. Afterwards each solution was compared with its
corresponding value calculated with finite element software. A summary
including all methods and all calculated examples is contained in Appendix A,
which also provides the ratio of frequency derived from simplified calculations to
an exact finite element solution for each example.
The evaluation of accuracy is informed by figure 3.2 where frequencies estimated
with simplified hand calculations are plotted on the x-axis and the solution from
FEM on the y-axis. Each marking represents one calculated value with its
particular method. The dashed line stands for the FEM values and symbolises the
ideal position for the calculated values. The closer a point is located to the FEM
line (vertical or horizontal distance), the higher its accuracy compared to the
finite element solution.
22
20
FEM
18
Equivalent beammethod
Equivalent plate approach
f 0 obtained by FEM [H z]
16
Concrete Society method
14
Static deflection method
12
Modified static deflection method
10
Approximation by Hearmon
Approximation by Jnich
Estimation for pin supported plates
Approximation by Bachmann
Approximation by Blevins
0
0
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
f 0 obtained by hand calculation [H z]
Figure 3.2 Comparison of hand-calculated and computed frequencies
45
Lukas Wolski
Overall, there is a reasonably good correlation between the hand-calculated

approximations and the computed values. Nevertheless it is noticeable that some
values have higher inaccuracies. The static deflection method (magenta cross) is
the most inaccurate estimation method, underestimating all its frequencies. In
contrast, the modified static deflection method (green plus sign) tends to
overestimate its solutions. This becomes clearer if the ratio of approximation to
computed value is plotted for each example, as in figure 3.3, making it possible to
see their higher variation in comparison with all other methods. The fact that both
methods consist of the same parameters and only differ in a modification factor
explains their similar pattern.
130
Equivalent beam method
120
Equivalent plate approach

Concrete Society method
ratio %: hand calculation / FEM
110
Static deflection method

100
Modified static deflection

method
Approximation by Hearmon
90
80
Estimation for pin
supported plates
Approximation by
Bachmann
70
Approximation by Blevins
ex
am
pl
e
1
ex
am
pl
e
2
ex
am
pl
e
3
ex
am
pl
e
ex
4
am
pl
e
5
ex
am
pl
e
6
ex
am
pl
e
7
ex
am
pl
e
ex
8
am
pl
e
ex
am 9
pl
e
1
ex
am 0
pl
e
1
ex
am 1
pl
e
12
60
Figure 3.3 Individual accuracy of approximations
This graph also clarifies the higher differences of Jnischs method (blue triangle)
for example 10 (25%) and example 12 (9.4%). As these examples involve
continuous slabs with two varying span lengths, it might be supposed that this
approximation is more qualified for continuous slabs with equal span length. This
assumption is confirmed by examples 9 and 11 calculated using Jnischs method,
which fulfil this condition and have variances of only 1.5% and 0.6%.
46
Lukas Wolski
3.4 Conclusion
Ten different methods for estimating the fundamental frequency of concrete floors
have been presented. The general aim has been to provide an overview of their
accuracy and therefore their serviceability for an initial estimation. Their integrity
was checked by comparing the solutions of concrete examples with accurate
values calculated with finite element software. Although some variations occurred
among each method, all methods provided good predictions and suffice for an
initial assessment. It should always be considered that these methods are only
approximations and are conducive to rather than conclusive in evaluating slabs
natural frequency.
The average ratio of hand calculated values to computed values is plotted for each
respective estimation method in figure 3.4, which indicates the common high
accuracy of all methods while also confirming the relative inaccuracy of the static
deflection and modified static deflection methods.
arithmetic mean of ratio hand calculation / FEM

120.0 %
107.8%
100.0 %
99.3%
99.6%
104.2%
99.6%
98.2 %
101.1%
100.3 %
99.3%
84.4 %
80.0 %
60.0 %
40.0 %
Approximation by
Blevins
Approximation by
Bachmann
Estimation for pin

supported plates
Approximation by
Jnich
Approximation by
Hearmon
Modified static
deflection method
Static deflection
method
Concrete Society
method
Equivalent plate
approach
0.0 %
Equivalent beam
method
20.0 %
estimation methods
Figure 3.4 Average accuracy of approximations
This inaccuracy could occur as a result of these methods general application. In

contrast to all other tested approximations specified for one fixed set-up, both the
deflection methods may be used for all kinds of boundary condition. An even
47
4. Numerical Analysis
Lukas Wolski
more important factor for their less accuracy is their derivation, as shown in 3.2.4.
Because their origin is derived form the equation of a one-degree-of-freedom
system considering just one mass, it is an extremely approximation.
However,
even with variations of 15.6% and 7.8%, the estimated values still can be used for
a rough prediction of vibration performance.
The use of adapted equations for specific boundary conditions provides very close
values compared to a finite element solution. Methods considering different kinds
of slab parameters in the present investigation yielded an accuracy of 4.2%
(overestimation) and 1.8% (underestimation), results more than good enough for
an approximate assessment of the fundamental frequency of slabs.
The specific qualities of a Cobiax flat slab as compared to a traditional solid slab
include a decreased stiffness and mass. As these parameters are two main factors
influencing natural frequency, this change has an impact on vibration
performance. However, because of the contrary effect of the decreased values it is
as yet undetermined how the final results are affected. An investigation will be
performed to clarify this lack of knowledge.
A series of detailed investigations will be carried out to evaluate the specific
behaviour of Cobiax slabs in relation to natural frequency. Calculations with finite
element software will be undertaken considering a whole range of common
situations in the designs of floors. Parameters such as geometry, boundary
conditions and loadings will change for each example. This variety guarantees the
feasibility of an overall and universally valid assessment. To evaluate the Cobiax
flat slab system, every example is also carried out for conventional solid slabs
which allows for a comparison of the slab types and assesses the quality of Cobiax
slabs in these conditions.
48
Lukas Wolski
4.1 Software
Because this research was undertaken in collaboration with Cobiax Technologies
GmbH, Germany, special software was provided for the investigation, namely the
finite element software Tornow-Software, established in Germany since 1983.
The software is subdivided into several packages for individual scopes. For this
investigation the FEM-Tripla package, developed for the design of floor
systems, was applied. A big advantage here was its additional Cobiax module
(Figure 4.1), specially generated for the design of Cobiax flat slabs. After the
input of all necessary data, including thickness of the slab and ball diameter, the
corresponding decreasing of mass and stiffness are taken into consideration.
Figure 4.1 Cobiax module
The package has different set-ups for investigating natural frequency and is
capable of calculating up to 10 natural frequencies using different approaches.
The following investigation considers the first three frequencies with the main
focus on fundamental frequency. Analysis of the natural frequencies is calculated
using the Lanczos algorithm, an iterative algorithm which employs the Lanczos
recursion. This is a process of defining or expressing a function or the solution to
a problem in terms of itself, by producing a recursive function. However, it is also
a very powerful solver and well known as an efficient method of finding
eigenvalues and eigenvectors of matrices. The Lanczos procedure is generally
49
Lukas Wolski
used for large sparse matrices. Cullum and Willoughby (1985) summarised the
basic steps in any Lanczos procedure as shown below.
1. Transform a given symmetric matrix A into a family of symmetric
tridiagonal matrices of varying sizes
2. Compute eigenvalues and eigenvectors of certain members of this
family
3. Take some or all of these eigenvalues as approximations to eigenvalues
of matrix A and map the corresponding eigenvectors of the tridiagonal
matrix into Ritz vectors for matrix A
4. Use these Ritz vectors as approximations to the eigenvectors of A
The accuracy of the calculated frequencies is set to 10-5 and is also improved by a
small and detailed mesh.
4.2 Verification of Software Accuracy

In terms of the obtained values accuracy, an initial test is carried out. A proof in
form of a comparison between Tornow-Software and a second finite element
software will clarify that Tornow-Software provides exact and accurate values.
For this purpose a slab was modelled with both types of software and its
fundamental frequency as well as its mode shape was calculated.
The used software is called RFEM 2.01 established by Dlubal Software. It is a
finite element software applicable for a wide range of tasks in structural
engineering.
The comparison consists of an example considering following parameters:
-
One span solid slab
All edges are simply supported
10m x 10m x 0.3m
E = 28,300 N/mm ; = 0.2 (C30/37)
Imposed load q = 5.0 kN/m
50
Lukas Wolski
The results gained of both calculations are presented in figure 4.2 and figure 4.3
below.
Fundamental frequency f0 : 7.135 Hz
Figure 4.2 1.Mode shape obtained by Tornow-Software
Fundamental frequency f0 : 7.148 Hz
Figure 4.3 1.Mode shape obtained by RFEM
51
Lukas Wolski
The conclusion of this comparison is unambiguous. Both estimated fundamental

frequency are nearly the same value. Only a very little difference of less than
0.2% is realised which could be influenced by differences in meshing the slab or
different calculation approaches.
Nevertheless, this initial comparison leaves no doubt in the exactness of values
described in this chapter. Furthermore the good correlation between computed
vales used Tornow-Software and hand-calculated vales in chapter 3 is an
additional indicator of the well performed accuracy of Tornow-Software.
4.3 General Settings

The most important factors in the provision of a correct evaluation are realistic
and comparable values. Some initial settings were carried out with the intention of
ensuring these necessary conditions. By applying common material properties,
geometries and construction forms which are used in practice the need to be
realistic is satisfied. As far as the comparability requirement is concerned,
constant estimations throughout the entire investigation will provide a good
solution.
The investigation includes seven common types of slabs in construction:
Example 1:
Simply supported slab, one-way spanning
Example 2:
Simply supported slab, two-way spanning
Example 3:
2 span slab, two-way spanning
Example 4:
3 span slab, two-way spanning
Example 5:
1x1 bay slab, supported by columns
Example 6:
Example 7:
All line supports used in this investigation are considered to be simply supported
without any restraints. Columns modelled in examples 5 7 are assumed to be
pinned, also without any restraints.
52
Lukas Wolski
For each of these seven systems a range of different geometries are regarded.
These include changes in length of spans (6m-17m) and different width of spans
(4m-17m). The proper thickness was obtained with information offered on
Cobiaxs website (2006) and is provided in appendix C. One good resource here
was a diagram presenting amongst other things the interrelationship between slab
length and necessary thickness as well as ball diameter. Furthermore, a list of
already existing projects including floor geometries and ball diameters was used
to estimate an appropriate deck thickness. Depending on this thickness, which
ranges from between 30cm and 60cm, a proper Cobiax hollow sphere (22.5cm45cm) was used. A detailed description including all parameters is given in the
corresponding tables in appendix B.
As regards material properties, realistic terms are assumed by using a concrete

providing a quality of C30/37. As this is an averaged concrete quality, common in
design, it will deliver useful values. Referring to DIN1045-1, 9.1.7, its mean
Young's modulus is 28,300 N/mm. The second material quality, the Poisson ratio,
is supposed to be 0.2 for the concrete used in both types of slabs. According to
DIN 1055-1, 5.1, the unit weight for reinforced concrete is 25.0 kN/m, the value
used to calculate the dead load. In addition, each slab is also loaded with
1.5 kN/m to represent loading due to possible use of coating.
For further loadings it is important to consider the wide range of structures Cobiax
flat slabs are suitable for, including residences, offices and car parks. Thus, rather
than limiting this investigation to one design situation, as wide an application field
as possible is regarded. The imposed loads are staged according to this purpose. A
loading of 5.0 kN/m is stepwise decreased by degrees of 25%, leading to further
loads of 3.75 kN/m, 2.50 kN/m, 1.25 kN/m, and finally 0 kN/m. In addition to
the dead load these five different loadings are used for each slab, providing a
variety of possible set-ups.
53
Lukas Wolski
4.4 Analysis of Results

The overall result of this investigation is that for all types of slabs, including their
entire range of varying dimensions, Cobiax flat slabs reached higher and therefore
better natural frequencies than traditional solid slabs with the same geometries.
The absolute values range from 0.022 Hz (2x1 bay slab, 30cm, 5.0 kN/m) to
3.813 Hz (2 span slab, 30cm, 0 kN/m).
The trend of fundamental frequencies for each example of a single span, two-way
spanning slab is plotted in figure 4.4. To present a better view, only two load
situations (0 kN/m and 5.0 kN/m) are displayed. It is noticeable that by
increasing the applied load, the difference of the absolute values for natural
frequency between Cobiax slabs and solid slabs decreases but, as will be shown
shortly, their ratios stay constant. Furthermore a decreasing and simultaneously a
narrowing of frequencies is observable if the slab systems become larger.
45
40
fundamental frequency [Hz]
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
6x4
6x6
8x6
8x8
10x6
10x8
10x10
12x10
12x12
15x10
15x12
17x15
17x17
dimension [m]
CS: q = 0 kN/m
SS: q = 0 kN/m
CS: q = 5.0 kN/m
SS: q = 5.0 kN/m
Figure 4.4 Fundamental frequencies for a single span slab
With larger spans, the natural frequency becomes reduced for both types of slabs,
resulting in smaller differences between the values. This is explained by the
constant ratio of frequency of Cobiax slabs to solid slabs. Provided that the slab
thickness and ball diameter of a Cobiax slab stay constant, the reduction of
54
Lukas Wolski
stiffness and mass will not change either. This leads to a specific and constant
value for each slab in which both types differ regardless of their geometry. This
means that the ratio fcs/fss of a 6m x 4m slab is equal to any other slab dimension,
as long as its deck is 30cm thick and a sphere with a diameter of 22.5cm is
included.
If the relative values are regarded, it is not necessary to consider all examples of a
slab but only its different thicknesses. This leads to an improved view of the
results as shown in figure 4.5. The relationship between deck thickness, applied
loads and the resulting difference in fundamental frequency is plotted. This
consideration has the advantage of allowing the possibility of evaluating vibration
performance comparatively.
increased f 0 of CS compared to SS
12.0%
10.0%
8.0%
6.0%
q = 0 kN/m
4.0%
q = 1.25 kN/m
2.0%
q = 2.50 kN/m
0.0%
q = 3.75 kN/m
imposed
loading
60 cm
40 cm
30 cm
q = 5.0 kN/m
deck thickness
0.0%-2.0%
2.0%-4.0%
4.0%-6.0%
6.0%-8.0%
8.0%-10.0%
10.0%-12.0%
Figure 4.5 3-D view of frequency dependency
The three-dimensional shape provides information on how the vibration behaviour

of Cobiax flat slabs as compared to conventional slabs improves by increasing
load and thickness. The sloped surface with increasing gradients towards higher
thicknesses as well as lesser loadings indicates that Cobiax slabs increase their
advantage of higher frequencies for these two changes. In the best case, when a
60cm thick floor is loaded according only to its own self-weight, the fundamental
55
Lukas Wolski
frequency of a Cobiax slab is 11.9% higher than its solid equivalent. Its minimum
advantage of 3.6% is obtained from the Cobiax systems for a 30cm deck with a
5.0 kN/m applied load. These two values define the range along which all others
comparisons are located. An extensive summary of all differences is shown in
table 4.1.
30cm (22.5cm)
40cm (31.5cm)
60cm (45cm)
q = 0 kN/m
10.1%
11.4%
11.9%
q = 1.25 kN/m
7.7%
9.2%
10.3%
q = 2.50 kN/m
6.0%
7.5%
9.0%
q = 3.75 kN/m
4.6%
6.2%
7.9%
q = 5.0 kN/m
3.6%
5.0%
7.0%
Table 4.1 Cobiax advantage related to loads and thickness
The values of this table are also plotted in the shape of smoothed curves in figure
4.6. In addition to the latter figure and table these three curves and therefore the
predominance of Cobiax slabs also clarify their decrease with incremental
loading. The point of intersection of the curves and the x-axis is worthy of
consideration. This point would provide the amount of loading at which Cobiax
slabs will achieve the same natural frequencies as solid slabs. For any point below
the ratio would change and the solid slabs would gain higher natural frequencies.
14.0%
12.0%
advantage of CS
10.0%
8.0%
6.0%
4.0%
2.0%
0.0%
0 kN/m
1 kN/m
2 kN/m
3 kN/m
4 kN/m
5 kN/m
loading
30cm (22.5cm)
40cm (31.5cm)
Figure 4.6: Cobiax advantages against loading
56
60cm (45cm)
6 kN/m
Lukas Wolski
If an approximation is applied, it is possible to express the falling trend with the

help of a cubic equation able to deliver knowledge concerning the further run.
Afterwards these equations can be used to calculate the approximate intersection
of curve and x-axis. This will be the boundary for which Cobiax flat slabs have an
improved vibration behaviour compared to solid floors.
h = 30cm
y = -0.0001x3 + 0.0024x2 - 0.0215x + 0.1005
h = 40cm
y = -0.0001x3 + 0.0019x2 - 0.0195x + 0.1137
h = 60cm
y = -4*10-05x3 + 0.001x2 - 0.0137x + 0.119
These equations yield maximum values for uniform loadings of (including

1.5 kN/m due to coating):
h = 30cm
max. q = 15.1 kN/m
h = 40cm
max. q = 12.2 kN/m
h = 60cm
max. q = 16.8 kN/m
Again, this can be expressed by ratios of applied load to self-weight:

h = 30cm
q/g = 2.95
h = 40cm
q/g = 1.83
h = 60cm
q/g = 1.64
These values are valid for all Cobiax slabs with thicknesses of 30cm, 40cm or
60cm including a sphere diameter of 22.5cm, 31.5cm or 45cm, regardless of their
boundary condition.
Because these values are gained by extrapolated calculations, a confirmation is
necessary. For this purpose additional finite element calculations were carried out,
including the critical loadings. All examples showed very good high similarity
between both fundamental frequencies.
Exemplary table 4.2 present results for a one span slab simply supported on all
four edges. With the utmost probability, the slightly variance of these numbers
occur due to the approximation during the extrapolation procedure.
57
Lukas Wolski
CS
SS
f0 [Hz]
f0 [Hz]
8m x 8m x 0.3m
8.279
8.299
12m x 12m x 0.4m
5.843
5.740
17m x 17m x 0.6m
4.491
4.393
Dimension
ratio fCS/fSS
0.998
1.018
1.022
Table 4.2 Accuracy of critical load for one span slab
Another check of the accuracy is given in figure 4.7. This chart has plotted the
direct relationship of applied load and resulting fundamental frequency for both
types of slab. In this case, the values relate to a continuous slab with two equal
spans and the same length-width ratio. Like before, it is noticeable that the
obtained critical value for 30cm slabs provides the highest accuracy which is
indicated by the very close intersection of both upper curves relating to the
predicted value (dashed line). But even if the approximation according to 40cm
and 60cm slabs are less accurate, the variance of 2% is still accurate enough to
evaluate the relationship between both types of slab.
16.00
14.00
fundamental frequency [Hz]
12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
0
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
applied load [kN]

CS: 8m x 8m x 30cm
SS: 8m x 8m x 30cm
CS: 12m x 12m x 40cm
SS: 12m x 12m x 40cm
CS: 17m x 17m x 60cm
SS: 17m x 17m x 60cm
Figure 4.7 Accuracy of critical load for continuous slab
The change in ratio between the different types of slab is caused by the decreasing
relevance the Cobiax slabs reduced self-weight. If the applied loadings are
similar to the self-weight, the reduction of approximately 30% mass is an
advantage for Cobiax slabs. However, once the applied loads increase, the selfweight becomes just a small amount of the overall load and is therefore negligible.
If this occurs, the only difference on the part of Cobiax slabs is the reduced
stiffness which has a negative impact on the vibration behaviour and therefore
leads to lower natural frequencies.
58
Lukas Wolski
4.5 Conclusion
An evaluation of Cobiax flat slabs (CS) compared to traditional solid slabs (SS)
was required. For this purpose an investigation of 940 different slabs including
changes in type (CS/SS), dimensions and boundary condition was carried out.
The overall conclusion is that Cobiax flat slabs possess higher fundamental
frequencies for all investigated combinations. However, it was also presented that
this only occurs if a specific load to self-weight ratio exists. Indeed, Cobiax slabs
lose their advantage of mass reduction after a certain point; but due to the amount
of loadings required to realise this, its general performance is not affected. More
precisely, the usual fields of application for Cobiax slabs are offices, public
buildings and car parks which could all be expected to bear a typically lesser
imposed load than the critical values. Table 4.3 shows some ranges of loadings
which should be considered in these areas according to the British as well as
German Standard.
Type of structure
Uniformly distributed load

[kN/m]
BS 6399-1 (1996)
DIN 1055-3 (2002)
Residence
1.5 - 4.0
1.5 - 2.0
Office and
similar use
2.0 - 5.0
2.0 - 5.0
2.0 - 7.5
3.0 - 5.0
2.5
2.5 - 5.0
Public areas
Car parks
(vehicles 25 kN)
Table 4.3 Extract of imposed loads in BS 6399-1 and DIN 1055-3
The provided values in both national Standards are all less than the minimum
critical value of q = 12.2 kN/m for a 40cm thick Cobiax slab. For this reason
the Cobiax system is supposed to gain higher natural frequencies than
conventional solid slabs in all its projects.
59
5. Conclusions and Recommendations
Lukas Wolski

5.1 General Conclusions
This research presents an overall view of natural frequency of concrete slabs in
structural engineering. Although it is a very large field of consideration, already
existing literature and research done in past provide good knowledge.
In case of human acceptance due to floor vibration a variety of recommendation is

available. By people like Reiher and Meister (1931),
Wiss and Parmelee (1974)
or Brownjohn (2001) many investigations were carried out to improve the

knowledge of this topic. Nowadays, with help of the wide range of
recommendation, no significant complaints should occur. This conclusion is
supported by different case studies including annoying floor vibration, as shown
by Bachmann (1992) and Hanagan (2005). All cases describing vibration
complaints confirm very low natural frequencies of their floors and therefore a
high risk of perceptible motions.
Approximate hand-calculations presented in chapter three are a very well-know

area. Due to the fact that computer supported calculations were not available,
natural frequencies had to be estimated by hand calculations in the past. The high
amount of existing literature gives an easy access and considers common slab
types. In terms of accuracy of these simplifications performed comparisons of
hand-calculated values and solutions obtained by finite element software
confirmed their high quality. Even if some methods include small inaccuracy, it is
still possible to use them as an initial estimation. With all existing computer
software nowadays these methods are used for rough estimations anyway.
Chapter four containing the main issue of this research shows the improved
vibration performance of Cobiax flat slabs compared to conventional solid slabs.
A detailed investigation clarified the different effects of the reduced weight and
stiffness of Cobiax slabs. It is shown that due to their lower dead load Cobiax flat
slabs achieve higher natural frequencies for common practical use. However, with
an increasing of imposed load this advantage decreases and after a certain point
60
Lukas Wolski
Cobiax slabs show lower and therefore worse natural frequencies. This change
happens because the negative reduction of stiffness remains constant while after
increasing the ratio of applied load to self weight the positive reduction of mass
decreases constantly until it becomes negligible.
An estimation of these critical values indicates that because of the high amount
of imposed loadings necessary to achieve this change, the vibration behaviour is
still passable. All application areas Cobiax flat slabs used to focus show less
imposed load than the critical values obtained.
5.2 Areas of Future Research

Because the fact that vibration performance of structures covers very large field of
consideration, further investigation are possible.
According to Lenzen (1966) one further important factor is the damping. A high
damping value is necessary to reduced floor vibration during its first cycles to avoid
human perception. Due to its reduced weight, the damping ratio is changed and leads to
other differences between Cobiax slabs and traditional solid slabs.
Another point which should be regarded is the thickness variety of Cobiax slabs.
Because each sphere diameter may be used for different thicknesses, the load reduction
changes as well. Again, this leads to individual critical values for each slab-thickness
ratio. If, for example, a 22.5cm diameter ball is located inside a 40cm slab instead of a
30cm, the load reduction decreases from approximate 32% to 24%. According to
chapter four this would decrease the critical value at which Cobiax slabs lose their
advantage compared to solid slabs.
61
References
Lukas Wolski
References
Bachmann H. and Ammann W. (1987) Vibration in structures: Induced by man
and machines, International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering
(IABSE)
Bachmann H. (1992) Case studies of structures with man-induced vibration,
Journal of Structural Engineering, 118(3), 631-647
Bachmann H. et al. (1995) Vibration problems in structures: practical guidelines,
Brinkhuser Verlag
Bilbao S. (2002) Timoshenko's beam equations
http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~bilbao/master/node163.html [28 August 2006]
Blevins R.D. (1979) Formulas for natural frequency and mode shape, Krieger
Publishing Company
Bolton A. (1978) Natural frequencies of structures for designers,
The Structural Engineer, 56A(9), 245-253
Bolton A. (1994) Structural dynamics in practice: A guide for professional
engineers, McGraw-Hill
British Standards Institution (1992) BS 6472, Guide to evaluation of human
exposure to vibration in buildings (1 Hz to 80 Hz)
British Standards Institution (1996) BS 6399-1 Loading for buildings;
Part 1: Code of practice for dead and imposed loads
Brownjohn J.M.W. (2001) Energy dissipation from vibrating floor slabs due to
human structure interaction, Shock and Vibration, 8(6), 315-323
Clough R.W. and Penzien J. (1993) Dynamics of structures, 2nd edn. McGraw-Hill
62
References
Lukas Wolski
Cobiax (2004) Planungshilfe: Cobiax Flachdecken, Cobiax Technologies AG

Cobiax (2006) Steifigkeitsfaktoren zur Bercksichtigung der Verminderung durch
Hohlkrper, Cobiax Technologies AG
Cobiax (2006) Lightweight solutions in concrete
http://www.cobiax.com [28 August 2006]
Concrete Society Working Party (2005) Post-tensioned concrete floor; Design
handbook, The Concrete Society
Cooney R.C. and King A.B. (1988) Serviceability criteria for buildings, Branz
study report, Building Research Association of New Zealand
Crist R.A. and Shaver J.R (1976) Deflection performance; Criteria for floors,
U.S. Department of Commerce, National Bureau of Standards
Cullum J.K. and Willoughby R.A. (1985) Lanczos algorithms for large
symmetric eigenvalues computations, Brickhuser-Boston
Deutsches Institut fr Normung (2001) DIN 1045-1, Tragwerke aus Beton,
Stahlbeton und Spannbeton; Teil 1: Bemessung und Konstruktion
Deutsches Institut fr Normung (2002) DIN 1055-3, Einwirkungen auf
Tragwerke; Teil 3: Eigen- und Nutzlasten fr Hochbauten
Deutsches Institut fr Normung (2001) DIN 4150-1, Erschtterungen im
Bauwesen; Teil 1: Vorermittlung von Schwingungsgren
Deutsches Institut fr Normung (1999) DIN 4150-2, Erschtterungen im
Bauwesen; Teil 2: Einwirkungen fr Hochbauten
Elishakoff I.B. (1974) Vibration analysis of clamped square orthotropic plate,
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Journal, 12, 921-924
63
References
Lukas Wolski
Emad El-Dardiry E. et al. (2002) Improving FE models of a long-span flat

concrete floor using natural frequency measurements, Computers and
Structures, 80, 21452156
Fisher J.M. and West M.A. (2001) Serviceability design considerations for lowrise buildings, American Institute of Steel Construction
Griffin M.J. (1990) Handbook of human vibration, Academic Press Ltd.
Hanes R.M. (1970) Human sensitivity to whole-body vibration in urban

transportation systems: A literature review, Applied Physics Laboratory,
The Johns Hopkins University, Maryland.
Hearmon R.F.S. (1959) The frequency of flexural vibration of rectangular

orthotropic plates with clamped or supported edges, Journal of Applied
Mechanics, 26, 537-540
Jeary A. (1997) Designers guide to the dynamic response of structures,

E & FN Spon
Leissa A.W. (1973) The free vibration of rectangular plates, Journal of Sound and
Vibration, 31(3), 257-293
Linda M.and Hanagan L.M. (2005) Walking-Induced Floor Vibration Case

Studies, Journal of Architectural Engineering, 11(1), 14-18
Magrab E.B. (1977) Natural frequencies of elastically supported orthotropic

rectangular plates, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 61(1), 79-83
Mazumdar J. (1971) Transverse vibration of elastic plates by method of constant

deflection lines, Journal of Sound and Vibration, 18(2), 147-155
Mindlin R.D., Schacknow A. and Deresiewicz H. (1956) Flexural vibration of

rectangular plates, Journal of Applied Mechanics, 23, 430-436
64
References
Lukas Wolski
Morrison J.B. (2006) Human response to vibration

http://www.sfu.ca [15 August 2006]
Osborne K.P. and Ellis B.R. (1990) Vibration design and testing of a long-span
lightweight floor, The Structural Engineer, 68(10), 181-186
Ove Arup & Partners (2004) Typical hospital floor; Vibration assessment,
Bubbledeck UK Ltd.
Pernica G. and Allen D.E. (1982) Floor vibration measurements in a shopping

centre, Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 9(2), 149-155
Pernica G. and Allen D.E. (1998) Control of Floor Vibration

http://irc.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/pubs/ctus/22_e.html [11 August 2006]
Pfeffer K. (2002) Untersuchung zum Biege- und Durchstanztragverhalten von

zweiachsigen Hohlkrperdecken, VDI Verlag
Reed R.E.Jr. (1965) Comparison of methods in calculating frequencies of corner

supported rectangular plates, NASA Technical Note, NASA TN D-3030
Reiher H. and Meister F.J. (1931) Die Empfindlichkeit des Menschen gegen
Erschtterungen, Forschung auf dem Gebiet des Ingenieurwesens, 2(11),
381-386
Schnellenbach-Held M. (2003) Transverse force capability of the BubbleDeck,

Expert Report, Institute for Solid Construction, Technical University
Darmstadt
Tredgold T. (1828) Elementary Principles of Carpentry, 2nd Ed., J. Taylor
Warburton G.B. (1954) The vibration of rectangular plates, Proceedings of the

Institution of Mechanical Engineers, 168, 371-384
65
References
Lukas Wolski
Weber B. (2002) Vorlesung Tragwerksdynamik, Institut fr Baustatik und

Konstruktion, ETH Zrich
Wikipedia (2006) Rayleigh-Ritz-Prinzip
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayleigh-Ritz-Prinzip [15 August 2006]
Wikipedia (2006) Rayleigh-Ritz method
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayleigh-Ritz_method [15 August 2006]
Williams M.S. et al. (1993) Comparison of finite element and field test results for
the vibration of concrete floors, Int. Conf. on Structural Dynamics Modelling:
Test, Analysis and Correlation, Cranfield, 79-88
Wiss J.F. and Parmelee R.H. (1974) Human Perception of Transient Vibrations,
Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, 100(ST4), 773-787
Young Benidickson V. (1993) Dealing with Excessive Floor Vibrations
http://irc.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/pubs/cp/gen4_e.html [11 August 2006]
66
APPENDIX A
Lukas Wolski
APPENDIX A
General Assumption ..............................................................................................68

Example 1 .............................................................................................................69
Example 2 .............................................................................................................71
Example 3 .............................................................................................................73
Example 4 .............................................................................................................76
Example 5 .............................................................................................................79
Example 6 .............................................................................................................82
Example 7 .............................................................................................................83
Example 8 .............................................................................................................86
Example 9 .............................................................................................................88
Example 10 ...........................................................................................................89
Example 11 ...........................................................................................................90
Example 12 ...........................................................................................................91
Summary of results ...............................................................................................92
67
APPENDIX A
Lukas Wolski
General Assumption
The accuracy of the simplified hand calculation method proposed in chapter 3.2
was checked by the following example. To obtain comparable values, all methods
within each example dealt with the same set-up. It was assumed that all floors
were built using the Cobiax flat slab system. For the calculation of the
fundamental frequency no further loadings besides the self-weight were implied.
The material qualities were chosen for a C30/37 concrete with a Young's modulus
of 28 300 N/mm and a density of 25 kN/m. Depending on the geometry of each
system, the ball size diameter was 22.5cm or 31.5cm. For these two Cobiax flat
slab systems specific qualities such as stiffness reduction and deal load were
considered according to Appendix C. The boundary conditions included simply
supported one-way as well as two-way spanning floors, and pin supported 1x1
and 1x2 bay slabs. The only value which changed during this comparison was the
Poisson ratio. In general all examples used a Poisson ratio of 0.2, but because two
of the tables used for the estimation of pin supported slabs imply a Poisson ratio
of 0.3 these examples had to be modified and the Poisson ratio was increased.
Furthermore, it is important that every example used only suitable estimations for
its boundary condition. A comparison of specific methods to provide appropriate
solutions for different boundary conditions was waived on this occasion.
68
APPENDIX A
Lukas Wolski
Example 1:
General properties:
Concrete: C30/37
Young's modulus E : 28,300 N/mm
Poisson's ratio : 0.2
Density : 25 kN/m
Thickness h: 30 cm
Cobiax slab properties:
Ball size : 22.5cm
Factor of stiffness reduction: 0.89
Dead load reduction: 2.39 kN/m
Equivalent beam method:
f0 =
2a
EI
=
2
2
m
2 8.0 m
28,300 10 6 N
m2
12 521 kg
Static deflection method:
1
f0 =
2
1
=
2
stat
9.81 m
s 2 = 6.98 Hz
0.0051 m
Modified static deflection method:
1.277
f0 =
2
stat
1.277
=
2
(0.3 3 1.0)m 4 0.89
9.81 m
s 2 = 8.91 Hz
0.0051 m
69
= 8.09 Hz
APPENDIX A
Lukas Wolski
Approximation by Jnich:
f0 =
DgK
=
hN
2
59.03 10 Nm 9.81 m
6
s
0.3m 17,033 N
1.22 10
-4
0 .5
= 8.26 Hz
Approximation by Blevins:
2
f0 =
2 a 2
9.631
E h3
=
2
12 m (1 - ) 2 8.0 2 m 2
28,300 10 6 N
0.3 3 m 3 0.89
m2
= 8.06 Hz
12 521 kg 2 1 - 0.2 2
m
Comparison:
calculated value
Ratio %:
hand calculation
/ FEM
Equivalent
beam method
Static
deflection
method
Modified static
deflection
method
Approximation
by Jnich
Approximation
by Blevins
FEM
8.09 Hz
6.98 Hz
8.91 Hz
8.26 Hz
8.06 Hz
8.157 Hz
99.2 %
85.6 %
109.2 %
101.3 %
98.8 %
---
70
APPENDIX A
Lukas Wolski
Example 2:
General properties:
Concrete: C30/37
Density : 25 kN/m
Thickness h: 40 cm
Ball size : 31.5cm
Equivalent beam method:
f0 =
28,300 10 6 N
EI
=
m
2 15.0 2 m 2
2 a2
stat
1
=
2
9.81 m
s
0.034 m
= 2.70 Hz
1.277
f0 =
2
stat
1.277
=
2
(0.3 3 1.0)m 4 0.88
12 679 kg
1
f0 =
2
9.81 m
s2
0.034 m
= 3.45 Hz
71
= 3.09 Hz
APPENDIX A
Lukas Wolski
f0 =
DgK
=
h N
2
138 .36 10 Nm 9.81 m

6
s
0.4m 16,650 N
9.88 10
-6
0 .5
= 3.15 Hz
2
E h3
9.558
f0 =
=
2
2
2 a 12 m (1 - ) 2 15.0 2 m 2
28,300 10 6 N
0.4 3 m 3 0.88
m
kg
12 679
1 - 0.2 2
m2
= 2.99 Hz
Comparison:
calculated value
Ratio %:
hand calculation
/ FEM
Equivalent
beam method
Static
deflection
method
Modified static
deflection
method
Approximation
by Jnich
Approximation
by Blevins
FEM
3.09 Hz
2.70 Hz
3.45 Hz
3.15 Hz
2.99 Hz
3.106 Hz
99.5 %
86.9 %
111.1 %
101.4 %
96.3 %
---
72
APPENDIX A
Lukas Wolski
Example 3:
General properties:
Concrete: C30/37
Density : 25 kN/m
Thickness h: 30 cm
Ball size : 22.5cm
Equivalent plate approach:

f0 =
1
D 1
+
=
m a2 b2
2
59.03 10 Nm 1
1
= 16.52 Hz
2 2 +
2
2
kg
8
.
0
m
8
.
0
m
521
2
m
Concrete Society method:

n a EI y
x = x
b EI x
kx =1 +
'
2
x
=1+
f x = f0 = kx
1 8.0m 59.03 10 6 Nm
= 1.0
8.0m 59.03 10 6 Nm
1
= 2.0
1.0 2
EI y
mb
= 2.0
59.03 10 Nm
= 16.52 Hz
4
4
521 kg 2 8.0 m
m
73
APPENDIX A
Lukas Wolski
1
f0 =
2
9.81 m
1
=
2
stat
s
= 13.14 Hz
0.00144 m
f0 =
1.277
2
stat
9.81 m
1.277
2
s
= 16.78 Hz
0.00144 m
f0 =
59.03 10 Nm 9.81 m
6
DgK
=
2
hN
s
N
0.3m 17,033
2.44 10
-4
0.25
= 16.52 Hz
Approximation by Hearmon:
A 4 D1
f0 =
1
2
B D2
4
b
m
2CD3
59.03 10 6 Nm
4
f0 =
1
2
8 .0 4 m 4
a 2b 2
59.03 10 6 Nm
4
8 .0 4 m 4
521 kg 2
m
2 59.03 10 Nm
8.0 2 m 2 8.0 2 m 2 = 16.52 Hz
4
Approximation by Bachmann:
f0 =
n
a2
3.14
E h3
=
2
12 m (1 - )
8.0 2 m 2
6
28,300 10 N
0.3 m 0.89
m
2
kg
12 521
2 1 - 0.2
m
74
= 16.51 Hz
APPENDIX A
Lukas Wolski
2
f0 =
2
2 a
E h3
12 m (1 - )
2
28,300 10 6 N
19.74
2 8.0 m
2
3
3
2 0.3 m 0.89
m
= 16.52 Hz
12 521 kg 2 1 - 0.2 2
m
Approximation
by Hearmon
Approximation
by Bachmann
Approximation
by Blevins
/ FEM
Modified static
deflection method
hand calculation
Static deflection
method
Ratio %:
Concrete Society
method
calculated value
Equivalent plate
approach
Comparison:
FEM
16.52
Hz
16.52
Hz
13.14
Hz
16.78
Hz
16.52
Hz
16.52
Hz
16.51
Hz
16.52
Hz
16.467
Hz
100.3 %
100.3 %
79.8 %
101.9 %
100.3 %
100.3 %
100.3 %
100.3 %
---
75
APPENDIX A
Lukas Wolski
Example 4:
General properties:
Concrete: C30/37
Density : 25 kN/m
Thickness h: 40 cm
Ball size : 31.5cm

f0 =
1 138.36 10 Nm
1
1
D 1
+
= 10.24 Hz
2 + 2 =
2
2
2
2
kg
2
m a
b
10.0 m
15.0 m
679
2
m
6

n a EI y
x = x
b EI x
kx =1 +
'
2
x
= 1+
f x = f0 = kx
1 15.0m 138.36 10 6 Nm
= 1.5
10.0m 138.36 10 6 Nm
1
= 1.44
1.5 2
EI y
mb 4
= 1.44
132.82 10 Nm
= 10.00 Hz
4
4
679 kg 2 10.0 m
m
76
APPENDIX A
Lukas Wolski
1
f0 =
2
9.81 m
1
=
2
stat
s
= 8.23 Hz
0.00367 m
f0 =
1.277
2
stat
9.81 m
1.277
2
s
= 10.51 Hz
0.00367 m
f0 =
6
-5 1
m
DgK
138.36 10 Nm 9.81 s 2 5.22 10
m4
=
h N
2
0.4m 16,650 N 3 0.25
m
= 10.24 Hz
A 4 D1
1
f0 =
2
B D2
4
b
m
2CD3
a 2b 2
138.36 10 6 Nm
4
f0 =
1
2
15.0 4 m 4
138.36 10 6 Nm
4
10.0 4 m 4
679 kg 2
m
2 138.36 10 Nm
15.0 2 m 2 10.0 2 m 2 = 10.24 Hz
4
f0 =
E h3
a2
12 m (1 - 2 )
5.10
15.0 2 m 2
6
28,300 10 N
0.4 m 0.88
m2
= 10.23 Hz
2
12 679 kg 2 1 - 0.2
m
77
APPENDIX A
Lukas Wolski
2
f0 =
2 a 2
Eh
12 m (1 - 2 )
32.08
28,300 10 6 N
0.4 3 m 3 0.88
m2
= 10.24 Hz
12 679 kg 2 1 - 0.2 2
m
2 15.0 2 m 2
Approximation
by Hearmon
Approximation
by Bachmann
Approximation
by Blevins
/ FEM
Modified static
deflection method
hand calculation
Static deflection
method
Ratio %:
Concrete Society
method
calculated value
Equivalent plate
approach
Comparison:
FEM
10.24
Hz
10.00
Hz
8.23 Hz
10.51
Hz
10.24
Hz
10.24
Hz
10.23
Hz
10.24
Hz
10.322
Hz
99.2 %
96.9 %
79.7 %
101.8 %
99.2 %
99.2 %
99.1 %
99.2 %
---
78
APPENDIX A
Lukas Wolski
Example 5:
General properties:
Concrete: C30/37
Density : 25 kN/m
Thickness h: 30 cm
Ball size : 22.5cm

f0 =
1 138.36 10 Nm
1
1
D 1
= 6.30 Hz
+
+
2
2
2
2
kg
2
m a2 b2
15
.
0
m
15
.
0
m
679
2
m
6

n a EI y
x = x
b EI x
kx =1 +
'
2
x
=1+
f x = f0 = kx
6
1 15.0m 138.36 10 Nm
= 1.0
15.0m 138.36 10 6 Nm
1
= 2.0
1.0 2
EI y
mb
= 2.0
132.82 10 Nm
= 6.18 Hz
4
4
679 kg 2 15.0 m
m
79
APPENDIX A
Lukas Wolski
1
f0 =
2
9.81 m
1
=
2
stat
s
= 5.05 Hz
0.00975 m
1.277
f0 =
2
stat
9.81 m
1.277
=
2
s
= 6.44 Hz
0.009 .75 m
f0 =
138 .36 10 6 Nm 9.81 m
DgK
=
h N
2
s
N
0.4m 16,650
1.975 10 -5 1
m3
0.25
= 6.30 Hz
A 4 D1
f0 =
1
2
B D2
4
b
m
2CD3
2
a b
138.36 10 6 Nm
4
f0 =
1
2
15.0 m
138.36 10 6 Nm
4
15.0 m
679 kg 2
m
2 138.36 10 Nm
2
2
2
2
15.0 m 15.0 m = 6.30 Hz
4
f0 =
E h3
a2
12 m (1 - 2 )
3.14
15.0 2 m 2
6
28,300 10 N
0.4 m 0.88
m
2
kg
12 679
2 1 - 0.2
m
80
= 6.29 Hz
APPENDIX A
Lukas Wolski
2
f0 =
2
2 a
E h3
12 m (1 - )
2
28,300 10 6 N
19.74
2 15.0 m
2
3
3
2 0.4 m 0.88
m
= 6.30 Hz
12 679 kg 2 1 - 0.2 2
m
Approximation
by Hearmon
Approximation
by Bachmann
Approximation
by Blevins
/ FEM
Modified static
deflection method
hand calculation
Static deflection
method
Ratio %:
Concrete Society
method
calculated value
Equivalent plate
approach
Comparison:
FEM
6.30 Hz
6.18 Hz
5.05 Hz
6.44 Hz
6.30 Hz
6.30 Hz
6.29 Hz
6.30 Hz
6.354
Hz
99.2 %
97.3 %
79.5 %
101.4 %
99.2 %
99.2 %
99.0 %
99.2 %
---
81
APPENDIX A
Lukas Wolski
Example 6:
General properties:
Concrete: C30/37
Density : 25 kN/m
Thickness h: 30 cm
Ball size : 22.5cm
1
f0 =
2
9.81 m
1
=
2
s
= 5.36 Hz
0.00865m
f0 =
1.277 g
1.277
=
2
2
S
9.81 m
s
= 6.84 Hz
0.00865m
Estimation for pin supported plates:
f0 =
h
2a
Dg
0.721
2
2 8.0 m
17,033 N 3 0.3 m
6
m
62.28 10 Nm 9.81 s 2
82
= 6.12 Hz
APPENDIX A
Lukas Wolski
7.12
2
E h3
=
f0 =
2
2
2 a 12 m (1 - ) 2 8.0 2 m 2
28,300 10 6 N
0.2 3 m 3 0.89
m
kg
12 512
1 - 0.3 2
m2
= 6.12 Hz
Comparison:
calculated value
Ratio %:
hand calculation
/ FEM
Static deflection
method
Modified static
deflection
method
Estimation for pin

supported plates
Approximation by
Blevins
FEM
5.36 Hz
6.84 Hz
6.12 Hz
6.12 Hz
6.102 Hz
87.8 %
112.1 %
100.3 %
100.3 %
---
83
APPENDIX A
Lukas Wolski
Example 7:
General properties:
Concrete: C30/37
Density : 25 kN/m
Thickness h: 40 cm
Ball size : 31.5cm
1
f0 =
2
9.81 m
1
=
2
s = 2.60 Hz
0.03687m
f0 =
1.277 g
1.277
=
S
2
2
9.81 m
s = 3.32 Hz
0.03687m
h
f0 =
2a 2 D g
16,650 N 3 0.4 m
0.933
m
=
2
2
6
m
2 15.0 m
145.96 10 Nm 9.81 2
84
= 3.02 Hz
APPENDIX A
Lukas Wolski
28,300 10 6 N
8.92
2
E h3
f0 =
=
2
2
2 a 12 m (1 - ) 2 15.0 2 m 2
0.4 3 m 3 0.88
m
2
kg
12 679
2 1 - 0.3
m
= 2.93 Hz
Comparison:
calculated value
Ratio %:
hand calculation
/ FEM
Static deflection
method
Modified static
deflection
method
Estimation for pin

supported plates
Approximation by
Blevins
FEM
2.60 Hz
3.32 Hz
3.02 Hz
2.93 Hz
2.930 Hz
88.7 %
113.3 %
103.1 %
100.0 %
---
85
APPENDIX A
Lukas Wolski
Example 8:
General properties:
Concrete: C30/37
Density : 25 kN/m
Thickness h: 40 cm
Ball size : 31.5cm
1
f0 =
2
9.81 m
1
=
2
s
= 2.04 Hz
0.05942m
f0 =
1.277 g
1.277
=
2
2
S
9.81 m
s
= 2.61 Hz
0.05942m
f0 =
h
2a
Dg
0.721
2
2 15.0 m
16,648 N 3 0.4 m
6
m
145.96 10 Nm 9.81 s 2
86
= 2.33 Hz
APPENDIX A
Lukas Wolski
28,300 10 6 N
7.12
2
E h3
f0 =
=
2
2
2 a 12 m (1 ) 2 15.0 2 m 2
0.4 3 m 3 0.88
m
kg
12 679
(1 0.3 2 )
m2
= 2.34 Hz
Comparison:
calculated value
Ratio %:
hand calculation
/ FEM
Static deflection
method
Modified static
deflection
method
Estimation for pin

supported plates
Approximation by
Blevins
FEM
2.04 Hz
2.61 Hz
2.33 Hz
2.34 Hz
2.331 Hz
87.5 %
112.0 %
100.0 %
100.4 %
---
87
APPENDIX A
Lukas Wolski
Example 9:
General properties:
Concrete: C30/37
Density : 25 kN/m
Thickness h: 30 cm
Ball size : 22.5cm
f0 =
2 EI
521 kg 2
0.1
m
=
2 28,300 10 6 N 2 0.002m 3
m
= 5.25Hz
f0 =
D g ( ai K i )
2
h ( ai N i )
2
59.03 10 Nm 9.81 m
6
0.3m 17,033 N
0.01 1
100 .0
= 5.29 Hz
Comparison:
calculated value
Ratio %:
hand calculation
/ FEM
Approximation by
Bachmann
FEM
5.29 Hz
5.25 Hz
5.211 Hz
101.5 %
100.7 %
---
88
APPENDIX A
Lukas Wolski
Example 10:
General properties:
Concrete: C30/37
Density : 25 kN/m
Thickness h: 40 cm
Ball size : 31.5cm
f0 =
2 EI
679 kg 2
0.055
m
=
2 28,300 10 6 N 2 0.0047m 3
m
= 3.87 Hz
f0 =
D g ( ai K i )
2
h ( ai N i )
2
138 .36 10 Nm 9.81 m
1 2
2 0.00722
s
m = 4.73 Hz
2
0.4 m 16,650 N 3 162 .5.0 m
m
6
Comparison:
calculated value
Ratio %:
hand calculation
/ FEM
Approximation by
Bachmann
FEM
4.73 Hz
3.87 Hz
3.785 Hz
125.0 %
102.2 %
---
89
APPENDIX A
Lukas Wolski
Example 11:
General properties:
Concrete: C30/37
Density : 25 kN/m
Thickness h: 30 cm
Ball size : 22.5cm
f0 =
D g ( ai K i )
2
h ( ai N i )
2
59.03 10 Nm 9.81 m
1 2
2 0.02
s
m = 10.58 Hz
2
0.3 m 17,033 N 3 50.0 m
m
6
Comparison:
calculated value
Ratio %:
hand calculation
/ FEM
FEM
11.60 Hz
10.599 Hz
109.4 %
---
90
APPENDIX A
Lukas Wolski
Example 12:
General properties:
Concrete: C30/37
Density : 25 kN/m
Thickness h: 40 cm
Ball size : 31.5cm
f0 =
6
m
1
DgK
138 .36 10 Nm 9.81 s 2 0.0217 m 2
=
= 11.60 Hz
2
h N
2
0.4 m 16,650 N 3 81.25 m
m
Comparison:
calculated value
Ratio %:
hand calculation
/ FEM
FEM
10.58 Hz
10.515 Hz
100.6 %
---
91
Table A.1 Summary of approximate hand calculation
92
---
---
112.0 %
2.61
113.3 %
3.32
112.1 %
6.84
101.4 %
6.44
101.8 %
10.51
101.9 %
16.78
111.1 %
3.45
109.2 %
8.91
---
---
---
---
---
99.2 %
6.30
99.2 %
10.24
100.3 %
16.52
---
---
5.29
---
---
---
99.2 %
6.30
99.2 %
10.24
100.3 %
16.52
101.4 %
3.15
101.3 %
8.26
---
---
---
---
---
---
10.58
0.540
0.153
standard deviation
/ FEM
99.6 %
hand calculation
1.540
98.2 %
3.797
84.4 %
4.887
107.8 %
0.540
99.6 %
7.893
104.2 %
109.4 %
11.6
---
---
f 0 [Hz]
---
---
100.6 %
---
---
125.0 %
/ FEM
99.3 %
Ratio %:
/ FEM
f 0 [Hz]
hand calculation
calculated values
Ratio %:
---
---
87.5 %
2.04
88.7 %
2.60
87.8 %
5.36
79.5 %
5.05
79.7 %
8.23
79.8 %
13.14
86.9 %
2.7
85.6 %
6.98
4.73
---
---
---
---
---
97.3 %
6.18
96.9 %
10.00
100.3 %
16.52
---
---
f 0 [Hz]
---
---
---
---
---
99.2 %
6.30
99.2 %
10.24
100.3 %
16.52
---
---
Approximation
by Jnich
101.5 %
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
99.5 %
3.09
99.2 %
8.09
Approximation
by Hearmon
/ FEM
hand calculation
calculated values
Ratio %:
/ FEM
f 0 [Hz]
hand calculation
calculated values
Ratio %:
calculated values
Ratio %:
/ FEM
f 0 [Hz]
hand calculation
calculated values
Ratio %:
/ FEM
f 0 [Hz]
hand calculation
calculated values
Ratio %:
/ FEM
f 0 [Hz]
hand calculation
calculated values
Ratio %:
/ FEM
f 0 [Hz]
hand calculation
calculated values
Ratio %:
/ FEM
f 0 [Hz]
hand calculation
calculated values
Ratio %:
/ FEM
f 0 [Hz]
hand calculation
calculated values
Ratio %:
/ FEM
f 0 [Hz]
hand calculation
calculated values
Ratio %:
f 0 [Hz]
hand calculation
calculated values
arithmetic mean in %
Example 12
Example 11
Example 10
Example 9
Example 8
Example 7
Example 6
Example 5
Example 4
Example 3
Example 2
Example 1
Equivalent beam Equivalent plate Concrete Society Static deflection

Modified static
method
approach
method
method
deflection method
1.395
101.1 %
---
---
---
---
100.0 %
2.33
103.1 %
3.02
100.3 %
6.12
---
---
---
---
---
Estimation for pin

supported plates
0.998
100.3 %
---
---
102.2 %
3.87
100.7 %
5.25
---
---
---
99.0 %
6.29
99.1 %
10.23
100.3 %
16.51
---
---
Approximation
by Bachmann
1.284
99.3 %
---
---
---
---
100.4 %
2.34
100.0 %
2.93
100.3 %
6.12
99.2 %
6.30
99.2 %
10.24
100.3 %
16.52
96.3 %
2.99
98.8 %
8.06
Approximation
by Blevins
10.599
10.515
3.785
5.211
2.331
2.93
6.102
6.354
10.322
16.467
3.106
8.157
FEM
APPENDIX A
Lukas Wolski
APPENDIX B
Lukas Wolski
APPENDIX B
(Calculated Values by FEM)
Simply supported slab, one-way spanning ............................................................94

Simply supported slab, two-way spanning ...........................................................95
2 span slab, two-way spanning .............................................................................96
3 span slab, two-way spanning .............................................................................97
1x1 bay slab, supported by columns .....................................................................98
2x1 bay slab, supported by columns .....................................................................99
3x3 bay slab, supported by columns ...................................................................100
93
h
[cm]
sphere
[cm]
[m]
[m]
22.5
30
22.5
30
30
30
40
40
40
60
22.5
22.5
22.5
22.5
31.5
31.5
31.5
45
q = 1.25 kN/m
f0
[Hz]
30
30
q = 0 kN/m
f0
8
10
10
10
12
15
15
17
8
6
8
10
10
10
12
12
CS
SS
CS
SS
CS
SS
CS
SS
CS
SS
CS
SS
CS
SS
CS
SS
CS
SS
CS
SS
q = 2.50kN/m
f0
[Hz]
q = 3.75 kN/m
f0
[Hz]
q = 5.00 kN/m
f0
[Hz]
[Hz]
1.Mode
2. Mode
3. Mode
1.Mode
2. Mode
3. Mode
1.Mode
2. Mode
3. Mode
1.Mode
2. Mode
3. Mode
1.Mode
2. Mode
3. Mode
12.709
11.548
7.153
6.500
7.172
6.517
4.572
4.154
4.585
4.166
4.596
4.176
4.389
3.941
2.806
2.520
2.811
2.524
3.367
3.009
29.716
27.001
15.202
13.813
12.343
11.215
11.687
10.619
9.263
8.417
7.902
7.181
8.603
7.725
6.562
5.892
5.679
5.100
7.511
6.712
51.071
46.406
28.719
26.096
27.587
25.067
18.371
16.693
18.413
16.731
17.671
16.057
17.617
15.818
11.284
10.132
11.297
10.143
13.543
12.102
11.655
10.821
6.560
6.091
6.578
6.107
4.193
3.893
4.205
3.904
4.215
3.913
4.095
3.748
2.613
2.393
2.617
2.397
3.201
2.901
27.252
25.301
13.942
12.944
11.319
10.509
10.718
9.951
8.495
7.887
7.247
6.728
8.027
7.346
6.111
5.596
5.289
4.843
7.140
6.471
46.836
43.484
26.338
24.453
25.299
23.488
16.848
15.642
16.886
15.678
16.206
15.046
16.513
15.096
10.508
9.623
10.519
9.633
12.874
11.668
10.826
10.216
6.094
5.750
6.110
5.765
3.895
3.675
3.906
3.686
3.915
3.694
3.853
3.581
2.455
2.284
2.459
2.287
3.057
2.804
25.315
23.887
12.950
12.220
10.514
9.921
9.956
9.394
7.891
7.446
6.732
6.352
7.552
7.019
5.741
5.340
4.969
4.622
6.819
6.255
43.506
41.053
24.465
23.086
23.500
22.175
15.650
14.768
15.685
14.801
15.054
14.205
15.593
14.463
9.873
9.183
9.883
9.193
12.295
11.278
10.153
9.702
5.714
5.461
5.730
5.476
3.652
3.490
3.663
3.500
3.671
3.508
3.649
3.434
2.323
2.188
2.326
2.188
2.931
2.716
23.739
22.686
12.144
11.606
9.860
9.422
9.336
8.922
7.399
7.071
6.313
6.033
7.153
6.732
5.431
5.116
4.701
4.420
6.538
6.059
40.798
38.989
22.942
21.925
22.038
21.060
14.676
14.025
14.709
14.057
14.117
13.491
14.811
13.904
9.340
8.799
9.350
8.781
11.788
10.924
9.591
9.259
5.398
5.212
5.412
5.225
3.450
3.331
3.460
3.340
3.468
3.348
3.475
3.304
2.210
2.104
2.213
2.104
2.819
2.636
22.425
21.649
11.472
11.075
9.314
8.992
8.819
8.514
6.990
6.748
5.963
5.757
6.811
6.477
5.167
4.919
4.472
4.249
6.289
5.880
38.540
37.208
21.673
20.923
20.818
20.098
13.864
13.384
13.895
13.415
13.335
12.874
14.135
13.405
8.886
8.459
8.895
8.442
11.339
10.602
Table B.1 Simply supported slab, one-way spanning
94
sphere
[cm]
[cm]
[m]
[m]
22.5
30
22.5
30
30
30
30
40
40
40
40
60
60
22.5
22.5
22.5
22.5
22.5
31.5
31.5
31.5
31.5
45.0
45.0
q = 1.25 kN/m
f0
[Hz]
30
30
q = 0 kN/m
f0
8
8
10
10
10
12
12
15
15
17
17
6
8
6
8
10
10
12
10
12
15
17
CS
SS
CS
SS
CS
SS
CS
SS
CS
SS
CS
SS
CS
SS
CS
SS
CS
SS
CS
SS
CS
SS
CS
SS
CS
SS
q = 2.50kN/m
f0
[Hz]
q = 3.75 kN/m
f0
[Hz]
q = 5.00 kN/m
f0
[Hz]
[Hz]
1.Mode
2. Mode
3. Mode
1.Mode
2. Mode
3. Mode
1.Mode
2. Mode
3. Mode
1.Mode
2. Mode
3. Mode
1.Mode
2. Mode
3. Mode
41.741
37.928
25.783
23.428
20.070
18.237
14.473
13.151
17.497
15.899
11.879
10.794
9.280
8.432
10.837
9.731
8.883
7.976
9.243
8.300
7.289
6.545
7.797
6.967
6.825
6.099
80.241
72.910
63.432
57.637
41.456
37.669
35.973
32.687
31.200
28.350
25.771
23.416
23.163
21.047
24.135
21.670
22.185
19.920
17.755
15.942
15.807
14.193
18.021
16.104
17.053
15.239
125.960
114.453
63.578
57.770
58.041
52.739
36.057
32.763
54.208
49.256
33.554
30.489
23.175
21.058
29.989
26.926
22.192
19.926
28.399
25.499
20.606
18.502
20.939
18.712
17.060
15.245
38.280
35.540
23.645
21.953
18.406
17.088
13.273
12.323
16.046
14.898
10.894
10.115
8.510
7.901
10.092
9.241
8.272
7.575
8.608
7.882
6.788
6.216
7.412
6.717
6.488
5.881
73.587
68.320
58.172
54.008
38.018
35.297
32.990
30.629
28.613
26.565
23.634
21.942
21.242
19.722
22.474
20.580
20.659
18.918
16.534
15.140
14.719
13.479
17.131
15.526
16.211
14.693
115.516
107.248
58.306
54.133
53.229
49.419
33.067
30.700
49.713
46.155
30.772
28.569
21.253
19.732
27.926
25.572
20.666
18.924
26.446
24.217
19.188
17.572
19.905
18.041
16.218
14.699
35.558
33.553
21.964
20.725
17.097
16.133
12.329
11.634
14.905
14.065
10.120
9.549
7.905
7.459
9.482
8.819
7.771
7.229
8.087
7.522
6.377
5.932
7.079
6.493
6.197
5.684
68.355
64.500
54.035
50.989
35.315
33.324
30.645
28.917
26.578
25.080
21.953
20.715
19.732
18.619
21.115
19.640
19.410
18.054
15.534
14.449
13.829
12.863
16.361
15.007
15.482
14.201
107.302
101.251
54.160
51.106
49.444
4.666
30.716
28.984
46.178
43.574
28.584
26.972
19.742
18.629
26.237
24.404
19.416
18.060
24.847
23.111
18.028
16.769
19.011
17.437
15.489
14.207
33.345
31.866
20.597
19.683
16.033
15.322
11.562
11.049
13.977
13.358
9.490
9.069
7.413
7.084
8.970
8.450
7.352
6.926
7.651
7.207
6.033
5.683
6.787
6.289
5.941
5.506
64.100
61.257
50.672
48.425
33.117
31.648
28.737
27.463
24.924
23.819
20.587
19.674
18.504
17.683
19.977
18.818
18.363
17.298
14.696
13.844
13.083
12.325
15.687
14.536
14.844
13.756
100.623
96.160
50.789
48.537
46.366
44.310
28.804
27.526
43.304
41.383
26.804
25.616
18.513
17.692
24.822
23.383
18.369
17.304
23.506
22.143
17.056
16.067
18.227
16.890
14.850
13.762
31.499
30.410
19.457
18.784
15.145
14.622
10.922
10.544
13.204
12.747
8.965
8.655
7.003
6.761
8.533
8.124
6.994
6.658
7.278
6.929
5.740
5.464
6.528
6.103
5.715
5.343
60.552
58.458
47.867
46.212
31.284
30.202
27.147
26.208
23.545
22.731
19.447
18.775
17.479
16.875
19.004
18.091
17.469
16.630
13.981
13.309
12.446
11.849
15.089
14.108
14.279
13.350
95.053
91.767
47.978
46.319
43.800
42.286
27.209
26.269
40.907
39.493
25.321
24.445
17.488
16.884
23.614
22.479
17.475
16.635
22.362
21.288
16.226
15.446
17.533
16.392
14.285
13.356
Table B.2 Simply supported slab, two-way spanning
95
h
[cm]
q = 0 kN/m
sphere
a1
[cm]
[m]
a2
[m]
b
[m]
30
22.5
30
22.5
30
30
22.5
22.5
10
10
8
10
8
10
40
31.5
12
10
10
40
31.5
12
12
12
40
40
31.5
31.5
15
15
12
15
12
15
60
45
17
15
15
60
45
17
17
17
CS
SS
CS
SS
CS
SS
CS
SS
CS
SS
CS
SS
CS
SS
CS
SS
CS
SS
CS
SS
1.Mode
20.947
19.034
14.467
13.146
12.368
11.238
9.264
8.418
11.279
10.127
8.879
7.973
7.594
6.819
5.679
5.099
8.074
7.215
6.818
6.093
q = 1.25 kN/m
q = 2.50kN/m
q = 3.75 kN/m
q = 5.00 kN/m
f0
f0
f0
f0
f0
[Hz]
[Hz]
[Hz]
[Hz]
[Hz]
2. Mode
28.369
25.778
17.281
15.703
16.079
14.610
11.067
10.056
14.286
12.827
10.615
9.532
9.860
8.853
6.790
6.097
9.921
8.865
8.155
7.287
3. Mode
44.568
40.497
35.991
32.704
27.495
24.983
22.987
20.887
25.639
23.021
22.100
19.844
16.847
15.127
14.157
12.712
18.984
16.965
17.008
15.199
1.Mode
19.210
17.835
13.268
12.318
11.342
10.531
8.496
7.888
10.503
9.618
8.268
7.572
7.072
6.476
5.288
4.843
7.675
6.956
6.482
5.874
2. Mode
26.017
24.155
15.848
14.714
14.746
13.690
10.149
9.423
13.303
12.182
9.885
9.052
9.182
8.408
6.323
5.790
9.431
8.547
7.752
7.026
Table B.3 Two span slab, two-way spanning
96
3. Mode
40.873
37.947
33.007
30.645
25.215
23.410
21.081
19.572
23.875
21.863
20.580
18.846
15.688
14.366
13.183
12.073
18.047
16.357
16.168
14.654
1.Mode
17.844
16.838
12.324
11.630
10.536
9.942
7.892
7.447
9.868
9.178
7.769
7.226
6.644
6.180
4.968
4.621
7.330
6.724
6.190
5.678
2. Mode
24.167
22.804
14.722
13.892
13.697
12.925
9.427
8.896
12.498
11.625
9.288
8.639
8.627
8.024
5.941
5.526
9.007
8.261
7.404
6.791
3. Mode
37.966
35.826
30.660
28.931
23.422
22.101
19.582
18.478
22.431
20.865
19.335
17.985
14.740
13.710
12.386
11.521
17.236
15.809
15.441
14.164
1.Mode
16.733
15.991
11.557
11.045
9.880
9.442
7.401
7.073
9.335
8.794
7.350
6.923
6.286
5.921
4.701
4.428
7.028
6.513
5.935
5.500
2. Mode
22.663
21.658
13.805
13.193
12.845
12.275
8.840
8.448
11.824
11.139
8.787
8.277
8.161
7.688
5.620
5.295
8.635
8.002
7.098
6.578
3. Mode
35.603
34.024
28.752
27.477
21.964
20.990
18.363
17.549
21.222
19.991
18.293
17.232
13.945
13.136
11.718
11.039
16.525
15.314
14.805
13.719
1.Mode
15.807
15.261
10.918
10.540
9.333
9.010
6.991
6.749
8.881
8.454
6.992
6.656
5.980
5.693
4.472
4.257
6.761
6.321
5.709
5.338
2. Mode
21.408
20.668
13.041
12.590
12.134
11.714
8.351
8.062
11.249
10.708
8.359
7.957
7.764
7.391
5.347
5.090
8.307
7.766
6.828
6.384
3. Mode
33.632
32.470
27.160
26.221
20.748
20.031
17.347
16.747
20.189
19.219
17.402
16.566
13.266
12.629
11.148
10.612
15.896
14.862
14.241
13.315
sphere
a1
a2
[cm]
[cm]
[m]
[m]
[m]
30
30
22.5
22.5
8
8
6
8
6
8
30
22.5
10
30
22.5
10
30
30
40
40
40
40
40
60
60
22.5
22.5
31.5
31.5
31.5
31.5
31.5
45
45
10
10
12
12
12
15
15
17
17
10
12
10
12
14
12
15
15
17
10
10
10
12
12
12
15
15
17
CS
SS
CS
SS
CS
SS
CS
SS
CS
SS
CS
SS
CS
SS
CS
SS
CS
SS
CS
SS
CS
SS
CS
SS
CS
SS
1.Mode
20,798
18,898
14,469
13,147
12,853
11,679
12,263
11,143
9,257
8,412
8,456
7,683
11,159
10,020
8,869
7,964
8,243
7,401
7,515
6,747
5,680
5,100
7,992
7,142
6,820
6,094
q = 0 kN/m
f0
q = 1.25 kN/m
f0
q = 2.50kN/m
f0
q = 3.75 kN/m
f0
q = 5.00 kN/m
f0
[Hz]
[Hz]
[Hz]
[Hz]
[Hz]
2. Mode
21,373
19,420
15,815
14,370
15,685
14,252
12,689
11,530
10,120
9,195
10,042
9,124
11,618
10,432
9,692
8,702
9,637
8,653
7,776
6,982
6,212
5,578
8,409
7,515
7,456
6,663
3. Mode
30,869
28,049
18,957
17,226
16,823
15,286
17,577
15,971
12,164
11,053
10,889
9,894
15,699
14,096
11,655
10,465
10,551
9,474
10,803
9,700
7,464
6,702
10,944
9,779
8,959
8,006
1.Mode
19,073
17,708
13,269
12,319
11,787
10,944
11,247
10,442
8,490
7,882
7,755
7,200
10,391
9,516
8,259
7,563
7,676
7,029
6,998
6,408
5,289
4,843
7,597
6,886
6,483
5,876
2. Mode
19,601
18,198
14,504
13,466
14,384
13,355
11,637
10,804
9,280
8,616
9,209
8,550
10,819
9,907
9,025
8,265
8,974
8,218
7,241
6,631
5,785
5,297
7,994
7,245
7,088
6,424
Table B.4 Three span slab, two-way spanning
97
3. Mode
28,309
26,283
17,385
16,141
15,428
14,324
16,119
14,966
11,156
10,357
9,986
9,271
14,619
13,387
10,853
9,939
9,825
8,997
10,060
9,212
6,951
6,365
10,403
9,429
8,517
7,719
1.Mode
17,717
16,718
12,325
11,630
10,949
10,332
10,447
9,858
7,886
7,441
7,203
6,797
9,763
9,081
7,760
7,218
7,212
6,708
6,575
6,115
4,969
4,622
7,256
6,655
6,191
5,679
2. Mode
26,296
17,180
13,472
12,713
13,361
12,608
10,809
14,129
8,621
8,135
8,554
8,072
10,165
9,455
8,479
7,887
8,432
7,843
6,803
6,328
5,435
5,055
7,635
7,003
6,769
6,209
3. Mode
18,207
24,814
16,149
15,239
14,331
13,523
14,973
14,129
10,362
9,778
9,276
8,753
13,735
12,775
10,197
9,485
9,231
8,586
9,451
8,791
6,530
6,074
9,936
9,113
8,134
7,461
1.Mode
16,614
15,878
11,558
11,046
10,267
9,812
9,797
9,362
7,395
7,067
6,755
6,455
9,237
8,701
7,341
6,916
6,823
6,427
6,220
5,859
4,701
4,429
6,956
6,447
5,936
5,501
2. Mode
17,074
16,316
12,634
12,074
12,530
11,974
10,136
9,687
8,084
7,726
8,022
7,666
9,616
9,059
8,022
7,557
7,977
7,514
6,436
6,063
5,142
4,844
7,320
6,783
6,490
6,014
3. Mode
24,659
23,566
15,144
14,472
13,439
12,843
14,041
13,419
9,717
9,287
8,698
8,313
12,994
12,241
9,647
9,088
8,733
8,227
8,942
8,423
6,178
5,820
9,526
8,828
7,799
7,227
1.Mode
15,695
15,152
10,918
10,541
9,699
9,364
9,254
8,934
6,986
6,744
6,381
6,160
8,787
8,365
6,984
6,649
6,491
6,179
5,917
5,633
4,472
4,258
6,692
6,256
5,710
5,339
2. Mode
16,129
15,571
11,934
11,522
11,836
11,427
9,575
9,244
7,637
7,373
7,578
7,316
9,148
8,709
7,631
7,265
7,589
7,224
6,123
5,829
4,892
4,657
7,041
6,583
6,243
5,837
3. Mode
23,294
22,489
14,306
13,811
12,695
12,256
13,264
12,805
9,180
8,862
8,217
7,933
12,361
11,768
9,177
8,737
8,308
7,909
8,506
8,098
5,877
5,595
9,163
8,567
7,502
7,014
sphere
[cm]
[cm]
[m]
[m]
30
30
22.5
22.5
6
6
4
6
30
22.5
30
22.5
30
30
30
40
40
40
40
40
60
60
22.5
22.5
22.5
31.5
31.5
31.5
31.5
31.5
45.0
45.0
10
10
10
12
12
15
15
15
17
17
6
8
10
10
12
10
12
15
10
17
CS
SS
CS
SS
CS
SS
CS
SS
CS
SS
CS
SS
CS
SS
CS
SS
CS
SS
CS
SS
CS
SS
CS
SS
CS
SS
CS
SS
1.Mode
11,741
10,669
9,255
8,409
6,339
5,760
5,206
4,731
4,327
3,932
3,939
3,579
3,334
3,029
3,686
3,310
3,190
2,865
2,591
2,182
2,414
2,168
2,043
1,835
3,193
2,854
2,451
2,190
q = 0 kN/m
f0
q = 1.25 kN/m
f0
q = 2.50kN/m
f0
q = 3.75 kN/m
f0
q = 5.00 kN/m
f0
[Hz]
[Hz]
[Hz]
[Hz]
[Hz]
2. Mode
29,544
26,845
21,336
19,387
15,074
13,697
12,004
10,908
11,644
10,580
9,162
8,325
7,689
6,987
8,493
7,626
7,360
6,609
6,529
5,499
5,618
5,045
4,715
4,234
8,714
7,787
5,655
5,053
3. Mode
34,245
31,117
21,361
19,410
16,940
15,393
12,019
10,921
13,618
12,374
10,068
9,148
7,694
6,991
9,188
8,250
7,362
6,610
7,559
6,367
6,174
5,544
4,718
4,236
10,191
9,107
5,660
5,058
1.Mode
10,767
9,997
8,487
7,880
5,813
5,397
4,774
4,433
3,968
3,684
3,612
3,354
3,057
2,838
3,432
3,143
2,971
2,721
2,412
2,072
2,248
2,059
1,903
1,743
3,036
2,751
2,330
2,112
2. Mode
27,094
25,155
19,567
18,167
13,824
12,834
11,009
10,221
10,678
9,914
8,402
7,801
7,051
6,547
7,909
7,243
6,854
6,276
6,080
5,223
5,232
4,791
4,391
4,021
8,284
7,508
5,375
4,872
3. Mode
31,406
29,158
19,590
18,188
15,536
14,424
11,022
10,234
12,489
11,595
9,233
8,572
7,056
6,551
8,556
7,835
6,856
6,278
7,039
6,047
5,749
5,265
4,393
4,023
9,687
8,780
5,380
4,876
Table B.5 1x1 bay slab, supported by columns
98
1.Mode
10,002
9,438
7,884
7,439
5,400
5,096
4,435
4,185
3,686
3,478
3,355
3,166
2,840
2,680
3,225
3,000
2,791
2,596
2,266
1,978
2,112
1,965
1,788
1,663
2,899
2,659
2,225
2,041
2. Mode
25,168
23,749
18,176
17,151
12,841
12,117
10,226
9,650
9,919
9,360
7,805
7,365
6,550
6,181
7,431
6,912
6,440
5,990
5,712
4,984
4,916
4,572
4,126
3,837
7,911
7,257
5,134
4,709
3. Mode
29,172
27,528
18,197
17,171
14,431
13,617
10,239
9,661
11,601
10,947
8,576
8,093
6,554
6,185
8,039
7,477
6,441
5,991
6,613
5,770
5,402
5,024
4,128
3,839
9,252
8,486
5,138
4,713
1.Mode
9,379
8,963
7,393
7,065
5,064
4,839
4,159
3,974
3,457
3,303
3,146
3,007
2,663
2,545
3,051
2,874
2,641
2,488
2,144
1,895
1,998
1,882
1,691
1,593
2,780
2,576
2,134
1,977
2. Mode
23,601
22,555
17,044
16,289
12,042
11,508
9,590
9,164
9,302
8,889
7,319
6,995
6,142
5,870
7,030
6,622
6,092
5,739
5,404
4,775
4,650
4,381
3,903
3,677
7,585
7,029
4,922
4,561
3. Mode
27,357
26,144
17,064
16,307
13,533
12,933
9,601
9,176
10,879
10,396
8,042
7,686
6,146
5,874
7,605
7,164
6,094
5,740
6,257
5,529
5,110
4,814
3,905
3,679
8,871
8,220
4,927
4,565
1.Mode
8,860
8,554
6,984
6,743
4,784
4,618
3,929
3,793
3,265
3,152
2,972
2,869
2,516
2,429
2,902
2,763
2,512
2,392
2,040
1,822
1,901
1,810
1,609
1,532
2,674
2,500
2,052
1,919
2. Mode
22,295
21,524
16,101
15,544
11,375
10,982
9,059
8,746
8,787
8,483
6,914
6,675
5,802
5,602
6,688
6,367
5,796
5,517
5,141
4,591
4,424
4,212
3,713
3,535
7,296
6,822
4,735
4,427
3. Mode
25,842
24,949
16,120
15,562
12,784
12,342
9,070
8,756
10,276
9,921
7,597
7,335
5,806
5,605
7,235
6,887
5,797
5,519
5,952
5,315
4,862
4,628
3,715
3,537
8,533
7,978
4,739
4,431
sphere
a1
a2
[cm]
[cm]
[m]
[m]
[m]
30
30
22.5
22.5
8.0
8.0
6.0
8.0
6.0
8.0
30
22.5
10.0
8.0
8.0
30
22.5
10.0
10.0
10.0
40
40
40
40
40
60
60
60
31.5
31.5
31.5
31.5
31.5
45.0
45.0
45.0
12.0
12.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
17.0
17.0
17.0
10.0
12.0
12.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
17.0
17.0
10.0
12.0
12.0
10.0
15.0
15.0
10.0
17.0
CS
SS
CS
SS
CS
SS
CS
SS
CS
SS
CS
SS
CS
SS
CS
SS
CS
SS
CS
SS
CS
SS
CS
SS
1.Mode
7,434
6,752
5,909
5.37
4.576
4.158
3.773
3.429
4.267
3.831
3.618
3.248
2.803
2.517
2.694
2.313
2.419
2.077
3.148
2.813
3.273
2.925
2.776
2.482
q = 0 kN/m
f0
q = 1.25 kN/m
f0
q = 2.50kN/m
f0
q = 3.75 kN/m
f0
q = 5.00 kN/m
f0
[Hz]
[Hz]
[Hz]
[Hz]
[Hz]
2. Mode
10,624
9,663
6,064
5.51
5.956
5.412
3.877
3.523
5.258
4.721
3.713
3.334
3.651
3.278
3.483
2.379
3.127
2.136
3.603
3.219
4.463
3.988
2.855
2.551
3. Mode
16,140
14,639
12,160
11.049
9.753
8.862
7.779
7.068
9.013
8.093
7.449
6.689
5.975
5.365
6.539
4.774
5.871
4.286
6.579
5.879
8.72
7.792
5.729
5.121
1.Mode
6,817
6,327
5,421
5.032
4.197
3.896
3.46
3.213
3.973
3.638
3.369
3.085
2.61
2.39
2.508
2.154
2.297
1.973
2.993
2.712
3.112
2.82
2.639
2.393
2. Mode
9,743
9,055
5,568
5.163
5.462
5.071
3.556
3.301
4.896
4.484
3.457
3.166
3.4
3.113
3.243
2.216
2.97
2.029
3.425
3.104
4.242
3.845
2.714
2.46
99
3. Mode
14,802
13,717
11,165
10.353
8.945
8.304
7.134
6.623
8.393
7.686
6.937
6.353
5.564
5.095
6.089
4.445
5.576
4.071
6.254
5.669
8.289
7.513
5.446
4.937
1.Mode
6,333
5,973
5,035
4.75
3.898
3.679
3.214
3.033
3.733
3.472
3.165
2.944
2.452
2.281
2.357
2.024
2.192
1.882
2.858
2.622
2.972
2.726
2.521
2.313
2. Mode
9,050
8,548
5,172
4.874
5.074
4.788
3.303
3.117
4.6
4.279
3.248
3.021
3.194
2.971
3.047
2.082
2.834
1.936
3.271
3
4.052
3.716
2.592
2.378
3. Mode
13,749
12,951
10,371
9.775
8.309
7.84
6.627
6.253
7.886
7.335
6.518
6.062
5.228
4.863
5.721
4.177
5.321
3.885
5.973
5.479
7.917
7.261
5.201
4.772
1.Mode
5,938
5,673
4,722
4.511
3.656
3.494
3.014
2.881
3.532
3.327
2.994
2.821
2.32
2.186
2.23
1.915
2.1
1.804
2.74
2.539
2.849
2.641
2.417
2.241
2. Mode
8,487
8,118
4,850
4.629
4.758
4.547
3.098
2.96
4.352
4.1
3.073
2.895
3.022
2.847
2.883
1.969
2.716
1.855
3.136
2.906
3.885
3.6
2.485
2.303
3. Mode
12,893
12,299
9,726
9.283
7.791
7.446
6.214
5.939
7.461
7.028
6.166
5.809
4.946
4.659
5.412
3.951
5.098
3.722
5.727
5.307
7.59
7.034
4.987
4.623
1.Mode
5,610
5,414
4,461
4.305
3.453
3.334
2.847
2.825
3.36
3.198
2.849
2.712
2.207
2.101
2.121
1.821
2.019
1.734
2.636
2.464
2.741
2.563
2.325
2.174
2. Mode
8,017
7,748
4,582
4.418
4.495
4.339
5.876
5.667
4.14
3.941
2.923
2.783
2.875
2.737
2.742
1.874
2.611
1.784
3.016
2.82
3.737
3.494
2.391
2.235
3. Mode
12,180
11,737
9,188
8.859
7.36
7.106
6.125
5.91
7.097
6.757
5.866
5.584
4.705
4.479
5.149
3.759
4.901
3.578
5.509
5.151
7.301
6.826
4.797
4.486
sphere
a1
a2
[cm]
[cm]
[m]
[m]
[m]
30
22.5
30
22.5
30
22.5
30
22.5
30
22.5
10
10
30
22.5
10
10
10
30
22.5
11
11
30
22.5
11
11
11
40
31.5
12
12
40
31.5
12
12
12
40
31.5
13
13
10
40
31.5
13
13
13
40
31.5
14
14
40
31.5
14
14
14
40
31.5
15
10
40
31.5
15
15
10
40
31.5
15
15
15
60
45
16
16
12
60
45
16
16
16
60
45
17
12
12
60
45
17
17
10
60
45
17
17
17
CS
SS
CS
SS
CS
SS
CS
SS
CS
SS
CS
SS
CS
SS
CS
SS
CS
SS
CS
SS
CS
SS
CS
SS
CS
SS
CS
SS
CS
SS
CS
SS
CS
SS
CS
SS
CS
SS
CS
SS
CS
SS
CS
SS
1.Mode
7.014
6.373
6.489
5.897
5.583
5.073
5.137
4.668
4.548
4.133
4.163
3.783
3.77
3.425
3.443
3.128
4.334
3.892
3.991
3.584
3.651
3.279
3.397
3.049
3.206
2.879
2.932
2.633
3.249
2.917
2.774
2.491
2.553
2.292
3.728
3.332
3.463
3.095
3.724
3.327
3.348
2.992
3.065
2.739
q = 0 kN/m
f0
q = 1.25 kN/m
f0
q = 2.50kN/m
f0
q = 3.75 kN/m
f0
q = 5.00 kN/m
f0
[Hz]
[Hz]
[Hz]
[Hz]
[Hz]
2. Mode
8.129
7.386
6.897
6.267
6.734
6.119
5.458
4.96
5.591
5.08
4.421
4.017
4.677
4.249
3.66
3.325
5.225
4.691
4.241
3.808
4.189
3.761
3.608
3.248
3.961
3.557
3.117
2.799
3.47
3.116
3.345
3.003
2.714
2.437
4.315
3.856
3.681
3.289
4.064
3.632
4.126
3.687
3.258
2.912
3. Mode
8.295
7.538
6.904
6.274
6.773
6.154
5.463
4.964
5.705
5.184
4.43
4.025
4.923
4.473
3.66
3.326
5.25
4.714
4.247
3.813
4.294
3.856
3.614
3.249
4.104
3.685
3.118
2.800
3.677
3.302
3.364
3.02
2.715
2.438
4.42
3.949
3.683
3.292
4.212
3.764
4.236
3.785
3.26
2.913
1.Mode
6.432
5.972
5.951
5.525
5.12
4.753
4.711
4.374
4.171
3.873
3.818
3.545
3.457
3.21
3.157
2.931
4.036
3.696
3.717
3.403
3.4
3.114
3.164
2.896
2.986
2.734
2.731
2.500
3.025
2.77
2.584
2.366
2.378
2.177
3.544
3.212
3.292
2.984
3.54
3.208
3.183
2.885
2.914
2.641
2. Mode
7.455
6.921
6.325
5.873
6.175
5.733
5.006
4.648
5.127
4.76
4.055
3.764
4.289
3.982
3.356
3.116
4.865
4.456
3.949
3.617
3.9
3.572
3.359
3.085
3.689
3.378
2.903
2.658
3.231
2.959
3.115
2.852
2.527
2.314
4.102
3.718
3.499
3.171
3.864
3.502
3.922
3.555
3.097
2.807
100
3. Mode
7.608
7.063
6.332
5.879
6.211
5.767
5.01
4.651
5.232
4.858
4.062
3.772
4.515
4.192
3.357
3.117
4.889
4.477
3.954
3.621
3.999
3.662
3.365
3.085
3.822
3.5
2.904
2.659
3.424
3.136
3.132
2.869
2.528
2.315
4.201
3.808
3.501
3.174
4.004
3.629
4.027
3.649
3.099
2.809
1.Mode
5.975
5.638
5.528
5.216
4.756
4.487
4.376
4.129
3.875
3.656
3.546
3.347
3.211
3.03
2.933
2.767
3.792
3.527
3.492
3.248
3.195
2.971
2.972
2.764
2.805
2.609
2.565
2.386
2.842
2.644
2.427
2.258
2.234
2.078
3.385
3.105
3.144
2.884
3.381
3.101
3.04
2.788
2.783
2.553
2. Mode
6.925
6.534
5.876
5.544
5.736
5.413
4.65
4.388
4.763
4.494
3.766
3.554
3.984
3.759
3.118
2.942
4.571
4.252
3.711
3.451
3.665
3.409
3.156
2.944
3.466
3.224
2.727
2.537
3.036
2.824
2.926
2.722
2.374
2.209
3.917
3.593
3.342
3.065
3.69
3.385
3.746
3.436
2.958
2.713
3. Mode
7.067
6.668
5.882
5.55
5.77
5.444
4.653
4.391
4.86
4.586
3.773
3.561
4.194
3.957
3.118
2.942
4.593
4.272
3.715
3.456
3.757
3.494
3.162
2.944
3.591
3.34
2.728
2.538
3.217
2.992
2.943
2.737
2.375
2.209
4.012
3.68
3.344
3.067
3.824
3.508
3.846
3.527
2.96
2.715
1.Mode
5.603
5.354
5.184
4.954
4.46
4.262
4.104
3.922
3.633
3.472
3.326
3.178
3.012
2.878
2.75
2.628
3.588
3.38
3.304
3.112
3.022
2.847
2.812
2.648
2.654
2.5
2.427
2.286
2.689
2.533
2.296
2.163
2.113
1.991
3.245
3.007
3.014
2.793
3.241
3.004
2.914
2.701
2.668
2.473
2. Mode
6.494
6.206
5.51
5.265
5.379
5.141
4.36
4.167
4.466
4.268
3.532
3.375
3.736
3.57
2.924
2.794
4.325
4.074
3.51
3.307
3.467
3.266
2.986
2.82
3.279
3.089
2.58
2.431
2.872
2.706
2.768
2.608
2.246
2.116
3.756
3.48
3.204
2.969
3.538
3.279
3.592
3.328
2.836
2.628
3. Mode
6.627
6.333
5.515
5.271
5.41
5.171
4.364
4.17
4.557
4.355
3.539
3.382
3.933
3.758
2.924
2.794
4.345
4.093
3.515
3.311
3.554
3.348
2.991
2.821
3.397
3.2
2.581
2.431
3.044
2.867
2.784
2.623
2.247
2.117
3.847
3.565
3.206
2.971
3.666
3.398
3.687
3.417
2.838
2.63
1.Mode
5.293
5.11
4.897
4.728
4.213
4.067
3.877
3.743
3.432
3.314
3.142
3.033
2.845
2.747
2.598
2.508
3.413
3.249
3.143
2.992
2.875
2.737
2.675
2.546
2.525
2.403
2.309
2.198
2.558
2.435
2.185
2.08
2.01
1.914
3.122
2.919
2.9
2.711
3.118
2.915
2.803
2.621
2.567
2.4
2. Mode
6.134
5.922
5.205
5.025
5.081
4.906
4.119
3.977
4.219
4.073
3.336
3.221
3.529
3.407
2.762
2.666
4.114
3.917
3.34
3.179
3.298
3.14
2.841
2.711
3.119
2.969
2.455
2.337
2.732
2.601
2.634
2.507
2.137
2.034
3.613
3.378
3.082
2.882
3.403
3.182
3.455
3.23
2.728
2.551
3. Mode
6.26
6.044
5.21
5.03
5.111
4.934
4.122
3.98
4.305
4.156
3.343
3.227
3.715
3.587
2.762
2.667
4.134
3.935
3.344
3.183
3.381
3.219
2.846
2.712
3.232
3.077
2.455
2.337
2.895
2.756
2.649
2.522
2.138
2.035
3.701
3.46
3.084
2.883
3.527
3.297
3.547
3.316
2.729
2.552
APPENDIX C
Lukas Wolski
APPENDIX C
(Cobiax Information)
Existing Cobiax projects .....................................................................................102

Summary of stiffness reduction ..........................................................................103
Design considerations .........................................................................................104
101
APPENDIX C
Lukas Wolski
project
span dimension
[m]
h
[cm]
[cm]
Zollvereinschool
Essen (D)
max. 17 m
50 / 52
36
Hessischer Landtag
Wiesbaden (D)
max. 17 m
40 / 45 / 50
18 / 31,5 / 36
Mainova
Frankfurt (D)
max. 10,6 m
23 / 25 / 30 /
35 / 39 / 40
18 / 22,5 / 27 / 31,5
Shopping Mall Palladium

Praga (CZ)
8,40 x 8,40 m
24 / 40
18 / 27
Novartis
Basel (CH)
6 m x 10 m
35
22.5
Newcastle College, Newcastle

Tyne & Wear (UK)
7.5 / 8.5 / 7.5 m x 5.5
30 / 32,5
18
Residential Ubiale
Bergamo (IT)
10 m
60
45
Parking BRG
Freistadt (AT)
16,00 x 5,00 m
55 / 62
45
Spedition Gebrder Weiss

Maria Lanzendorf (AT)
8,00 m
in one direction
30
18
SF Swiss Television
Zrich (CH)
9,6 m x 8 m
30
22.5
Peugeot Center
Moosseedorf (CH)
15 m x 10 m
40 / 45
31,5 / 36
Wylerpark
Bern (CH)
10,4 m x 9,8 m
30
22.5
Eclipse Park, Maidstone

Kent (UK)
6x6m
30
18
Sheffield University LCR

Sheffield (UK)
9x9m
34
27
Iprona
Lana (IT)
9,60 x 7,25 m
60 / 40
31,5 / 45
Commercial Centre Settevalli

Perugia (IT)
12,50 m
45 / 47
36
Table C.1 Existing Cobiax projects
102
APPENDIX C
Lukas Wolski
Steifigkeitsfaktoren zur Bercksichtigung der Verminderung durch Hohlkrper

Zur Bercksichtigung der Verminderung der Steifigkeit infolge der eingebauten Hohlkrper
werden nachfolgend Steifigkeitsfaktoren fr die Hohlkrperdecke angegeben. Die Werte beruhen
auf Berechnungen fr den Zustand I bei zentrischer Kugellage. Die Einflsse fr den Zustand II
wurden anhand von Biegeversuchen berprft. Gem der Auswertung dieser Versuche ist die
Abminderung infolge Zustand I magebend. Mit diesen Faktoren kann eine Verformungsberechnung der Decken durchgefhrt werden, wobei die reduzierte Eigenlast zu bercksichtigen
ist.
Deckenstrke hcb [cm]
23 *
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Verhltniswert hcb/Dcb [-]
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
18
Hohlkrper Dcb [cm]

1,28 1,33 1,39 1,44
1,5
1,56 1,61 1,67 1,72 1,78 1,83 1,89 1,94
2,06 2,11 2,17 2,22
Verhltniswert cobiax /massiv [-] 0,88 0,89 0,90 0,92 0,92 0,93 0,94 0,94 0,95 0,95 0,96 0,96 0,97 0,97 0,97 0,97 0,97 0,98
28 *
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
22,5
Hohlkrper Dcb [cm]

1,24 1,29 1,33 1,38 1,42 1,47 1,51 1,56
1,6
1,64 1,69 1,73 1,78 1,82 1,87 1,91 1,96
34 *
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
27
Hohlkrper Dcb [cm]

1,26
1,3
1,33 1,37 1,41 1,44 1,48 1,52 1,56 1,59 1,63 1,67
1,7
1,74 1,78 1,81 1,85 1,89
40 *
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
31,5
Hohlkrper Dcb [cm]

1,27
1,3
1,33 1,37
1,4
1,43 1,46 1,49 1,52 1,56 1,59 1,62 1,65 1,68 1,71 1,75 1,78 1,81
45 *
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
36
Hohlkrper Dcb [cm]
1,25 1,28 1,31 1,33 1,36 1,39 1,42 1,44 1,47
1,5
1,53 1,56 1,58 1,61 1,64 1,67 1,69 1,72
52 *
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
40,5
Hohlkrper Dcb [cm]
1,28 1,31 1,33 1,36 1,38 1,41 1,43 1,46 1,48 1,51 1,53 1,56 1,58
1,6
1,63 1,65 1,68
1,7
58 *
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
45
Hohlkrper Dcb [cm]

1,29 1,31 1,33 1,36 1,38
1,4
1,42 1,44 1,47 1,49 1,51 1,53 1,56 1,58
1,6
1,62 1,64 1,67
* empfohlene Mindestdeckenstrke
Cobiax Technologies AG
Postfach 140
Oberallmendstrasse 20 A
CH-6301 Zug
Tel: +41 41 767 00 00
Fax: +41 41 767 00 09
Info.cobiax.com
www.cobiax.com
Wert bei exzentrischer Hohlkrperlage
Zweiachsige Hohlkrperdecke
Verformungsberechnung
Steifigkeitsfaktor
Anlage 6
zur allgemeinen
Bauaufsichtlichen Zulassung
vom xx.xx.xxxx
Table C.2 Factors considering reduced stiffness
103
APPENDIX C
Sphere diameter
Min. centre distance
Max. amount of spheres
Recommended deck thickness
Dead load reduction per sphere
Lukas Wolski
[cm]
18.00
22.50
27.00
31.50
36.00
40.50
45.00
[cm]
20.00
25.00
30.00
35.00
40.00
45.00
50.00
[1/m]
25.00
16.00
11.11
8.16
6.25
4.94
4.00
[cm]
23.00
28.00
34.00
40.00
45.00
52.00
58.00
[kN]
0.08
0.15
0.26
0.41
0.61
0.87
1.19
[kN/m]
1.91
2.39
2.86
3.34
3.82
4.29
4.77
Stiffness factor
[-]
0.88
0.87
0.87
0.88
0.87
0.88
0.88
Shear factor
[-]
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.55
Max. dead load reduction
Table C.3 Cobiax parameters
Figure C.1 Comparison of spans and concrete quantity
Figure C.2 Comparison of spans and loads
104

Cobiax Flat Slabs I

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cobiax Flat Slabs I

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Natural frequency of Cobiax flat slabs

Thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for

Cobiax flat slab

Moment of inertia in x-direction

Moment of inertia in y-direction

Mass (per unit area)

Density of plate material

Circular frequency (= 2 x frequency)

3.2.9 Compilation of Formulas by Blevins ...............................................44

1. Introduction and Background Knowledge

1. Introduction and Background Knowledge

1. Introduction and Background Knowledge

1.2 Natural Frequency

1. Introduction and Background Knowledge

1.3 Cobiax flat slab

impairment of its bond.

Figure 1.1 Cobiax cage modules

1. Introduction and Background Knowledge

Alternatively it can be used

Figure 1.2 Cobiax semi-precast slabs

slabs from 24cm to upwards of 60cm.

1. Introduction and Background Knowledge

1.4 Aims and Objectives

This study investigates three objectives. Firstly, due to varying estimations

1. Introduction and Background Knowledge

1.5 Purpose of Research

1. Introduction and Background Knowledge

1.6 Literature review

1. Introduction and Background Knowledge

In general Bachmann (1987) recommends avoiding frequencies below 7.5Hz for

1. Introduction and Background Knowledge

1.6.2 Case Studies

1. Introduction and Background Knowledge

recommendations designed to avoid vibration problems. However, as a result of

1.6.3 Consideration of Vibration in Design

1. Introduction and Background Knowledge

1. Introduction and Background Knowledge

fundamental frequencies. However, the dynamical deflection increased for a

Crist and Shaver (1976) complained about insufficient investigation of floor

1.6.4 Two Way Hollow Decks

1. Introduction and Background Knowledge

an external load-to-self weight ratio of 1:5. In case of punching it was discovered

Another structural behaviour, the transverse force capacity, was investigated by

1.6.5 Comparison of FEM and Field Tests

1. Introduction and Background Knowledge

converted to an autospectrum using a Fast Fourier Transform procedure and the

1. Introduction and Background Knowledge

1. Introduction and Background Knowledge

1.6.6 Determination of Frequency

1. Introduction and Background Knowledge

Magrab (1976) adopted a different approach to estimating the natural frequencies

The influence of Timoshenkos additional consideration, rotational inertia and

Leissa (1973) presented a study of approximate formulas for free vibration of

2. Human Response and Acceptance Criteria

2. Human Response and Acceptance Criteria

differently. Generally vertical foot-to-head vibration

2. Human Response and Acceptance Criteria

However, every direction of motion has to be

Different responses are given depending on the age,

Timing and duration:

Motions at night are less tolerated than those

If subjects are forewarned of vibration, their

Different levels of acceptance exist for office work,

Acceptance levels are also affected by the